Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[paddoboy]

Too bad. And I see no additional value in responding to your #366.

Yet you see plenty of value in trusting the infallible mythical nonsense of a couple of fanatical god bothering nuts, and when asked by iceaura to specifically highlight these imaginary irrefutable facts by the two religious fanatics, make excuses and refuse to do so.

 

[Q-reeus]

Yet you see plenty of value in trusting the infallible mythical nonsense of a couple of fanatical god bothering nuts, and when asked by iceaura to specifically highlight these imaginary irrefutable facts by the two religious fanatics, make excuses and refuse to do so.

So typical of you both. Pugnacious hypocrites who would never be satisfied with any argument for ID and prefer laying in with insulting caricatures. Better to work that aggression out on a punching bag with effigy of most despised 'celebrity' ID advocate painted on.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

No over reach here James....I'm simply saying that the emergence of life from non life can only be explained by Abiogenesis and we have various pathways by which that may occur, but as yet , we can't determine which one.

I say that we can't even specify one possible pathway to life from non-life. Not in specific detail. So saying that there are several viable options and we just don't know which one is the right one yet is over reaching.

And again, as a reminder, this did not draw the controversy at another forum, where the exact same debate with near the exact same OP was also discussed. But there of course non mainstream myths and claims are quickly subdued or moved to the alternative/trash sections....yes, yes, I understand that this is no concern of yours, just saying James.

Maybe your argument didn't take the same form there as it does here. Maybe nobody over there noticed the error. Maybe on a forum where those who are perceived as pseudoscientists are quickly silenced, issues like this are less likely to become topics for discussion. Who knows? The fact that your views are regarded as uncontroversial by some other people doesn't mean you're right.

You see the problem started with exchemist, an avid supporter of q-reeus and hatred of myself for questioning so many of his mate's mythical claims over a wide range of subjects, some that you have taken part in. exchemist greatest problem seems to be, that he sees himself as a goody two shoes and much like q-reeus. judge and jury, with seemingly your support. That's OK, I can easily live with that.

Arguably, the "problem" started with your opening post, which could be read as you "calling out" the creationists by drawing a line in the sand. Without realising it, you created a problem for yourself in the process by claiming more than you're able to deliver. Over-reach.

Not that it matters, but I might point out that I generally find myself in agreement with exchemist more than just about anybody else who posts to sciforums, and this thread is no exception. I can't comment on whether he is an "avid supporter" of Q-reeus, as you say. I haven't seen any hatred of you from him. I think his problem with you is probably similar to my problem with you: that you tend to be a self-appointed crusader for what you regard as "proper" science and how "proper" science should be done. That may not be bad in itself, although it does make you somewhat closed-minded to other views - even under the umbrella of science - as we're seeing here. What tends to be worse is that you so often choose to get personal and to use ad hominem arguments rather than something more substantive. I think, also, you'd do better to realise that there are some arguments you can't hope to "win" using science.

 

[paddoboy]

And therefore necessarily wrong, because the supernatural is bad. Right?

I said unscientific James, but perhaps as science keeps pushing any mythical IDer back into near oblivion, the gap to fit their god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller. Or have I got you all wrong? Are you saying the supernatural maybe real? Have you changed your mind also about UFOs? and Bigfoot? and ghosts in haunted houses? and 9/11 conspiracies?

What has been shown is that creationism is not in the least scientific, in spite of the Creationists' claims to the contrary. It has also shown that ID, in the form it is most often pushed by its most vocal proponents, is just Creationism in disguise.

But showing that Creationism is unscientific does nothing to show that "scientific abiogenesis" is a fact. You don't get to have your scientific explanation by default, any more than Q-reeus gets to have his God by default.

So, do you have another scientific method/process as to how life emerged from no life, that is not Abiogenesis? Wait! Abiogenesis is life from non life by definition. Nice fence sitting James...

Nobody disagrees about that. If God formed Adam out of dust, that is life emerging from non-life. The argument is about the process.

Except one is by a process we call chemistry and a natural set of means governed by the laws of physics since the BB and as a result of cooling, stellar formation, heavy element creation, planets and you should know the rest. And the other some omnipotent being who does not need the laws of physics like the rest of us mere mortals.

That's not saying much. Creationists would say that abiogenesis took place via one or more pathways, too.

James, obviously I'm speaking of scientific pathways. Not sure what you are claiming, other then to try and project the impartial judge...That's OK, I prefer science.

 

[paddoboy]

So typical of you both. Pugnacious hypocrites who would never be satisfied with any argument for ID and prefer laying in with insulting caricatures. Better to work that aggression out on a punching bag with effigy of most despised 'celebrity' ID advocate painted on.

I wonder what the insulting caricatures would be thrust in my direction if I went to church next week and started defaming their mythical beliefs in the supposed house of god

 

[Write4U]

Damn semantics.....

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
I say that we can't even specify one possible pathway to life from non-life. Not in specific detail. So saying that there are several viable options and we just don't know which one is the right one yet is over reaching.

I'm fairly sure I have said words to the same affect about thirty times. Except for the over reaching.

Maybe your argument didn't take the same form there as it does here. Maybe nobody over there noticed the error. Maybe on a forum where those who are perceived as pseudoscientists are quickly silenced, issues like this are less likely to become topics for discussion. Who knows? The fact that your views are regarded as uncontroversial by some other people doesn't mean you're right.

You are correct on the highlighted path only.The facts as I stated here are word for word the same as elsewhere. The problem here was in the first insatnce semantics and pedant.

Arguably, the "problem" started with your opening post, which could be read as you "calling out" the creationists by drawing a line in the sand. Without realising it, you created a problem for yourself in the process by claiming more than you're able to deliver. Over-reach.

I started with science and obviously, yes that drew the ire of one of our chief anti mainstream proponents, and his fence sitting friend, who was only able to dabble in semantics to somehow contain the obvious and only conclusion from the scientific application of Abiogenesis.

Not that it matters, but I might point out that I generally find myself in agreement with exchemist more than just about anybody else who posts to sciforums, and this thread is no exception. I can't comment on whether he is an "avid supporter" of Q-reeus, as you say. I haven't seen any hatred of you from him. I think his problem with you is probably similar to my problem with you: that you tend to be a self-appointed crusader for what you regard as "proper" science and how "proper" science should be done. That may not be bad in itself, although it does make you somewhat closed-minded to other views - even under the umbrella of science - as we're seeing here. What tends to be worse is that you so often choose to get personal and to use ad hominem arguments rather than something more substantive. I think, also, you'd do better to realise that there are some arguments you can't hope to "win" using science.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-two-old-friends.161943/
post 16 and 17

ps: I also agreed with most exchemist has said just out of interest, despite his displeasure at my style, which btw is give as good as I get.

 

[Write4U]

James R said:
What has been shown is that creationism is not in the least scientific, in spite of the Creationists' claims to the contrary. It has also shown that ID, in the form it is most often pushed by its most vocal proponents, is just Creationism in disguise.

Like.

But showing that Creationism is unscientific does nothing to show that "scientific abiogenesis" is a fact. You don't get to have your scientific explanation by default, any more than Q-reeus gets to have his God by default.

I must disagree. There are only two choices ; ID abogenesis (religion) or Natural Abiogenesis (science).

If it is not one it MUST be the other, regardless if we know the details. To an atheist ID is not a consideration at all. Evolution of the universe and everything that's in it emerged by natural processes which can eventually be analyzed and codified. Even then we may not be able to do it due to environmental conditions which cannot be duplicated exactly as they were over the ages (14.5 billion years in the universe) (4.5 billion years on earth).

But if we can decipher the maths we can try to create living stuff artificially and I think we are hard at work on that. Especially in the field of prosthetics and AI.

 

[paddoboy]

That may not be bad in itself, although it does make you somewhat closed-minded to other views - even under the umbrella of science - as we're seeing here.

I don't believe I have been any more closed minded [as you put it] then you have been particularly with the claims by MR of alien origin UFOs, ghosts, goblins, conspiracies. A shame that in many ways I am rather laid back and lazy and just cannot be bothered to retrieve the posts that I see as supporting that.

 

[James R]

(I'm -l o v i n g- this thread!)

Write4U:

Nor can you.

That's what I've been saying all along!

God "did it" is not a recipe. Not by 3000 years of biblical history. A long sentence. Or was it six days?

I agree. The bible saying God did it isn't evidence that God did it. What the IDers need is to gather some evidence for their theory, rather than spending all their time in fruitless attempts to disprove evolution, or whatever.

You are asking impossible questions. You want the recipe for life?

Of course I do. Don't you?

Suppose we can never come up with the recipe?

Then we'll all have to keep saying "I don't know how life started". Which won't be so different from the position we're in now.

Invoking ID does not solve your problem for a recipe.

I agree. Invoking ID actually means you've got a bigger burden of proof than you had at the start, because not only do you have to come up with the mechanism for creating life from non-life, but you also need to find some evidence to support the existence of an appropriately capable Designer.

So having a few hundred scientist spending their lives in laboratories trying to design life is gonna solve the problem?

I hope so! I can't immediately think of any other way it's going to get solved. Can you?

At which point will you give up and admit that nature did what we are unable to do in a lab?

Never! Scientists don't give up trying to solve the mysteries thrown up by nature.

Or are you then claim that as proof God did it?

You haven't been paying attention to my posts above. Nobody gets to have their god by default.

So denying natural chemical evolutionary processes as being somehow divorced from universal self-assembly, is denying evolution period. Are you denying evolution?

This the part of your post that made me smile the most.

I say "There's currently no accepted scientific theory for abiogenesis" and in reply you say "You're an evolution denier!"

Is pointing out the obvious really enough for you to relegate me to the Creationist sin bin?

Wait a post or two and you'll see Q-reeus, or somebody, tell me (again) that I'm a hardcore atheist materialist who is closed-minded to the possibility that God Did It.

If not then you must grant that the stuff which makes up the universe is able evolve into anything that is even remotely mathematically and physically possible, given enough time and space.

I don't think I have to grant that at all. That's another example of the over reach I talked about earlier. Just because something is physically possible, it doesn't follow that the thing must actually exist in the real world.

Does that mean humans didn't evolve from simpler mammals? Or because the universe could never come up with such "irreducible complexity" it would be impossible to evolve complex patterns by normal universal evolutionary potentials and constants to begin with ?
Everything is ID? Why do we have science at all?

I think at this point you're asking the wrong person these questions.

Can you explain the formation of the solar system in a few sentences or a single equation?

Yes. For instance, the first sentence would go something like this: "The solar system formed when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed under its own gravity." Of course, that sentence is not the Theory. By if you were to ask appropriate questions, we could drill down into the details until you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that description is accurate.

Try the same exercise for abiogenesis and, sooner or later, you'll hit a wall where there are gaps in knowledge of important matters. That's because there's no Theory of Abiogenesis, yet.

Natural chemical evolution of the universal potentials is capable of creating biochemicals which are components of organic molecules which are components of living organisms.

You'll get no argument from me on that. Now, how do the biochemicals become alive? Stuck yet?

The whole evolutionary process is popularly referred to as abiogenesis because, regardles of how, life emerged from non-life at some point, most likely with some intermediate steps like viruses, which are technically not living organisms.

You can't just gloss over the "regardless of how" part if you're claiming that there's an accepted theory of abiogenesis, like paddoboy is claiming, for instance.

We even have the proof of intermediate steps between purely chemical compounds and biochemical patterns.

Okay, but the picture isn't complete. Agree?

Did God create viruses or did their biochemical patterns emerge naturally?

All I can say is that nobody has shown me any evidence that convinces me that God created viruses (or anything else, for that matter). But that doesn't mean you get to have your biochemical patterns by default.

What more evidence do you require?

Ideally, I'd like to see evidence of at least one sequence of steps that leads to the emergence of a living organism from non-living matter - i.e. abiogenesis.

Claiming you have such a sequence is over reach. Unless you have one. So...?

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

I said unscientific James, but perhaps as science keeps pushing any mythical IDer back into near oblivion, the gap to fit their god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller. Or have I got you all wrong? Are you saying the supernatural maybe real? Have you changed your mind also about UFOs? and Bigfoot? and ghosts in haunted houses? and 9/11 conspiracies?

I haven't changed my mind about any of those things. If you say Bigfoot exists, I say show me the evidence. If you say that "scientific abiogenesis" can explain the origin of life, I say show me the evidence.

So, do you have another scientific method/process as to how life emerged from no life, that is not Abiogenesis?

That's not the point. The point is that YOU don't have ONE scientific method/process to explain how life emerged from non-life.

If you think I'm arguing for a God, or for ID, or whatever, then you've completely and repeatedly missed the point of my posts to you on this topic - and, I might say, the point of exchemist's post to you that started this particular ball rolling.

Nice fence sitting James...

A good scientist has no option but to sit on the fence until the data is in. The alternative is pretending you know stuff you don't know.

Except one is by a process we call chemistry and a natural set of means governed by the laws of physics since the BB and as a result of cooling, stellar formation, heavy element creation, planets and you should know the rest. And the other some omnipotent being who does not need the laws of physics like the rest of us mere mortals.

Granted that the various scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis seem much more plausible than the supernatural alternatives, as things stand. But I've said that from the start.

James, obviously I'm speaking of scientific pathways. Not sure what you are claiming...

I'm not the one making unwarranted claims. That's the point.

 

[paddoboy]

You can't just gloss over the "regardless of how" part if you're claiming that there's an accepted theory of abiogenesis, like paddoboy is claiming, for instance.

Claiming you have such a sequence is over reach. Unless you have one. So...?

Paddo, [god bless his cotton pickin little soul] is saying that obviously life emerged from non life....Speaking scientifically, and on a science forum to boot, so far the only scientific answer is via Abiogenesis. Any claim of any IDer is not scientific, but people will continue for many years yet to still accept the unscientific mythical reasoning over the scientific reasoning. That's OK, that's there beliefs, but it ain't science.
Now we look at the theory/model/process, even assumption if you like of Abiogenesis and we find that we are unable to map precisely the exact pathway.
Does that detract from the overall big picture? I don't believe it does, and I believe I have offered enough professional and reputable opinions on that.
You are splitting hairs James.


Please also note despite howls of protest from q-reeus, I do not go out to promote argument with religious/IDer members. The thread was not started for that particular reason, but in hindsight, I should have seen what was coming. Afterall this is not the other place.
I have often seen you in battle with Jan. And I believe that at times you have treated her too harshly. Not sure if I have posted in any of her threads, maybe once or twice. Reason why I believe that is that I really don't believe Jan is any real threat and at least we know straight up that she is a christian. Any threat imo comes from the more sneaky religious/IDers that like to stay closeted as far as there beliefs go, while all the time doing their best to attempt to deride science in many obviously questionable ways. remember the three Brothers?
Rajish, the god and expletive deleted? Yep they were all three brothers!
And in recent times that has happened again/

Take it easy...
ps: I also believe an old foe of yours Zarkov, made more sense then some of the god botherers of late.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:


I haven't changed my mind about any of those things. If you say Bigfoot exists, I say show me the evidence. If you say that "scientific abiogenesis" can explain the origin of life, I say show me the evidence.

I saw what you done there James. Abiogenesis tells us that life arose from non life...explaining how is not so clear cut. Scientific Evidence of Abiogenesis?
Once there was no life, then there was?
There is life on at least one planet that we know of?

That's not the point. The point is that YOU don't have ONE scientific method/process to explain how life emerged from non-life.

I disagree. If one can rule out mythology and the supernatural, what have we left?
Anyway late James...need some beauty sleep.

 

[paddoboy]

An old biblical quote before I leave, with regards to comments in 392...By there deeds thou shalt know them....or words to that effect.

 

[Write4U]

(I'm -l o v i n g- this thread!)

Write4U: That's what I've been saying all along!

Thank you James. Let me stipulate right now that I am not accusing you with all my questions. I am asking you because I know I'll get a well considered answer and sound critique of my posts.

I agree. The bible saying God did it isn't evidence that God did it. What the IDers need is to gather some evidence for their theory, rather than spending all their time in fruitless attempts to disprove evolution, or whatever.

Of course I do. Don't you?

Then we'll all have to keep saying "I don't know how life started". Which won't be so different from the position we're in now.

I agree. Invoking ID actually means you've got a bigger burden of proof than you had at the start, because not only do you have to come up with the mechanism for creating life from non-life, but you also need to find some evidence to support the existence of an appropriately capable Designer.

I agree with all the above.

I hope so! I can't immediately think of any other way it's going to get solved. Can you?

Well, kinda.
All we need to do is create a living thing, any living thing via a chemical reaction. That is not a difficult thing to do.

Never! Scientists don't give up trying to solve the mysteries thrown up by nature.

....

You haven't been paying attention to my posts above. Nobody gets to have their god by default.

I agree. But why should we refrain from having nature as the default creative environment.
Life is not that miraculous. It's everywhere we look.

Researchers have been trying to create artificial cells for more than 20 years — piecing together biomolecules in just the right context to approximate different aspects of life. Although there are many such aspects, they generally fall into three categories: compartmentalization, or the separation of biomolecules in space; metabolism, the biochemistry that sustains life; and informational control, the storage and management of cellular instructions.

There were just eight ingredients: two proteins, three buffering agents, two types of fat molecule and some chemical energy. But that was enough to create a flotilla of bouncing, pulsating blobs — rudimentary cell-like structures with some of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x

This the part of your post that made me smile the most.
I say "There's currently no accepted scientific theory for abiogenesis" and in reply you say "You're an evolution denier!"
Is pointing out the obvious really enough for you to relegate me to the Creationist sin bin?

Sorry that I gave the impression of accusing you what you so clearly explained. As I said my questions were of a general nature and not directed at you per se.

Wait a post or two and you'll see Q-reeus, or somebody, tell me (again) that I'm a hardcore atheist materialist who is closed-minded to the possibility that God Did It.

No doubt....

I don't think I have to grant that at all. That's another example of the over reach I talked about earlier. Just because something is physically possible, it doesn't follow that the thing must actually exist in the real world.

The universe in all its incredible complexity was physically possible. And we have a defacto agreement that the BB acually happened, even if we have no clue as to what caused the BB.

I think at this point you're asking the wrong person these questions.

No, you're the right person. I'm just asking the questions the wrong way.

Yes. For instance, the first sentence would go something like this: "The solar system formed when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed under its own gravity." Of course, that sentence is not the Theory. By if you were to ask appropriate questions, we could drill down into the details until you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that description is accurate.

True, but we have had centuries to study the behavior and mathematics of massive bodies. How did they get to orbit, a dynamic movement? Is movement itself not a property of living things? Is it possible, that's where life begins/ Change?

Try the same exercise for abiogenesis and, sooner or later, you'll hit a wall where there are gaps in knowledge of important matters. That's because there's no Theory of Abiogenesis, yet.

I have hopes. We're only at it for some twenty years.

You'll get no argument from me on that. Now, how do the biochemicals become alive? Stuck yet?

In a way, true. But is the obstacle for abiogenesis and evolution of living things greater than projecting the BB as a spontaneous event and the subsequent formaton of the universe?
We do not believe this was a creationist event and thus we are stuck with "we don't know" when we talk about the universe itself. But we're pretty sure of the BB, even though we have no way of testing our hypothesis.
Yet we have some general consensus about the BB. We can't duplicate it, but we are looking at it every day.

You can't just gloss over the "regardless of how" part if you're claiming that there's an accepted theory of abiogenesis, like paddoboy is claiming, for instance.

Should we not be consistent in those type of questions about origins.

Okay, but the picture isn't complete. Agree?

Completely.

All I can say is that nobody has shown me any evidence that convinces me that God created viruses (or anything else, for that matter). But that doesn't mean you get to have your biochemical patterns by default.

Well, to an atheist who does not consider God as a viable option for any sort of creation, the obvious choice is Natural Evolution from pure chemical to biochemical (abiogenesis), to rudimentary life, to complex life as the only remaining option.

Ideally, I'd like to see evidence of at least one sequence of steps that leads to the emergence of a living organism from non-living matter - i.e. abiogenesis.

Exactly, but we must not get confused by the term "life' either. If there is no evidence of abiogenesis anywhere, what is evolution all about then?

Claiming you have such a sequence is over reach. Unless you have one. So...?

Oh I am sure there are sequences used in biochemistry, DNA of bacteria is pretty simple. I am a little more optimistic about eventually being able to form a living thing.

When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life.

That was a 24 hr experiment.
The earth had 4.5 billion years to perform 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments. We just need more time.

I'll take the odds on Earth rather than the hand of God.

 

[paddoboy]

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-life-insight-peptides-amino-acids.html
JULY 10, 2019
Origin of life insight: peptides can form without amino acids:

Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new UCL study.

The findings, published in Nature, could be a missing piece of the puzzle of how life first formed.

"Peptides, which are chains of amino acids, are an absolutely essential element of all life on Earth. They form the fabric of proteins, which serve as catalysts for biological processes, but they themselves require enzymes to control their formation from amino acids," explained the study's lead author, Dr. Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry).

"So we've had a classic chicken-and-egg problem—how were the first enzymes made?"

He and his team have demonstrated that the precursors to amino acids, called aminonitriles, can be easily and selectively turned into peptides in water, taking advantage of their own built-in reactivity with the help of other molecules that were present in primordial environments.
more at link.....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1371-4

Peptide ligation by chemoselective aminonitrile coupling in water

Abstract
Amide bond formation is one of the most important reactions in both chemistry and biology1,2,3,4, but there is currently no chemical method of achieving α-peptide ligation in water that tolerates all of the 20 proteinogenic amino acids at the peptide ligation site. The universal genetic code establishes that the biological role of peptides predates life’s last universal common ancestor and that peptides played an essential part in the origins of life5,6,7,8,9. The essential role of sulfur in the citric acid cycle, non-ribosomal peptide synthesis and polyketide biosynthesis point towards thioester-dependent peptide ligations preceding RNA-dependent protein synthesis during the evolution of life5,9,10,11,12,13. However, a robust mechanism for aminoacyl thioester formation has not been demonstrated13. Here we report a chemoselective, high-yielding α-aminonitrile ligation that exploits only prebiotically plausible molecules—hydrogen sulfide, thioacetate12,14 and ferricyanide12,14,15,16,17 or cyanoacetylene8,14—to yield α-peptides in water. The ligation is extremely selective for α-aminonitrile coupling and tolerates all of the 20 proteinogenic amino acid residues. Two essential features enable peptide ligation in water: the reactivity and pKaH of α-aminonitriles makes them compatible with ligation at neutral pH and N-acylation stabilizes the peptide product and activates the peptide precursor to (biomimetic) N-to-C peptide ligation. Our model unites prebiotic aminonitrile synthesis and biological α-peptides, suggesting that short N-acyl peptide nitriles were plausible substrates during early evolution.

 

[exchemist]

(I'm -l o v i n g- this thread!)

Write4U:


That's what I've been saying all along!


I agree. The bible saying God did it isn't evidence that God did it. What the IDers need is to gather some evidence for their theory, rather than spending all their time in fruitless attempts to disprove evolution, or whatever.


Of course I do. Don't you?


Then we'll all have to keep saying "I don't know how life started". Which won't be so different from the position we're in now.


I agree. Invoking ID actually means you've got a bigger burden of proof than you had at the start, because not only do you have to come up with the mechanism for creating life from non-life, but you also need to find some evidence to support the existence of an appropriately capable Designer.


I hope so! I can't immediately think of any other way it's going to get solved. Can you?


Never! Scientists don't give up trying to solve the mysteries thrown up by nature.


You haven't been paying attention to my posts above. Nobody gets to have their god by default.


This the part of your post that made me smile the most.

I say "There's currently no accepted scientific theory for abiogenesis" and in reply you say "You're an evolution denier!"

Is pointing out the obvious really enough for you to relegate me to the Creationist sin bin?

Wait a post or two and you'll see Q-reeus, or somebody, tell me (again) that I'm a hardcore atheist materialist who is closed-minded to the possibility that God Did It.


I don't think I have to grant that at all. That's another example of the over reach I talked about earlier. Just because something is physically possible, it doesn't follow that the thing must actually exist in the real world.


I think at this point you're asking the wrong person these questions.


Yes. For instance, the first sentence would go something like this: "The solar system formed when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed under its own gravity." Of course, that sentence is not the Theory. By if you were to ask appropriate questions, we could drill down into the details until you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that description is accurate.

Try the same exercise for abiogenesis and, sooner or later, you'll hit a wall where there are gaps in knowledge of important matters. That's because there's no Theory of Abiogenesis, yet.


You'll get no argument from me on that. Now, how do the biochemicals become alive? Stuck yet?


You can't just gloss over the "regardless of how" part if you're claiming that there's an accepted theory of abiogenesis, like paddoboy is claiming, for instance.


Okay, but the picture isn't complete. Agree?


All I can say is that nobody has shown me any evidence that convinces me that God created viruses (or anything else, for that matter). But that doesn't mean you get to have your biochemical patterns by default.


Ideally, I'd like to see evidence of at least one sequence of steps that leads to the emergence of a living organism from non-living matter - i.e. abiogenesis.

Claiming you have such a sequence is over reach. Unless you have one. So...?

 

[exchemist]

paddoboy:


I say that we can't even specify one possible pathway to life from non-life. Not in specific detail. So saying that there are several viable options and we just don't know which one is the right one yet is over reaching.


Maybe your argument didn't take the same form there as it does here. Maybe nobody over there noticed the error. Maybe on a forum where those who are perceived as pseudoscientists are quickly silenced, issues like this are less likely to become topics for discussion. Who knows? The fact that your views are regarded as uncontroversial by some other people doesn't mean you're right.


Arguably, the "problem" started with your opening post, which could be read as you "calling out" the creationists by drawing a line in the sand. Without realising it, you created a problem for yourself in the process by claiming more than you're able to deliver. Over-reach.

Not that it matters, but I might point out that I generally find myself in agreement with exchemist more than just about anybody else who posts to sciforums, and this thread is no exception. I can't comment on whether he is an "avid supporter" of Q-reeus, as you say. I haven't seen any hatred of you from him. I think his problem with you is probably similar to my problem with you: that you tend to be a self-appointed crusader for what you regard as "proper" science and how "proper" science should be done. That may not be bad in itself, although it does make you somewhat closed-minded to other views - even under the umbrella of science - as we're seeing here. What tends to be worse is that you so often choose to get personal and to use ad hominem arguments rather than something more substantive. I think, also, you'd do better to realise that there are some arguments you can't hope to "win" using science.

Yes James, that's about right as far as I'm concerned. You are more patient than I!

But, loath though I am to mention personalities in a science thread, I cannot avoid noting that I am again being maligned by pb, who is - yet again - seeing the world through the lens of his own absurd and tedious vendettas, instead of focusing on the science. What he has however correctly discerned (and evidently resents) is that I recognise that, unlike himself, Q-reeus actually knows some physics, whatever the (to my mind crank) ideas he may have in areas like this one.

 

[Write4U]

Ideally, I'd like to see evidence of at least one sequence of steps that leads to the emergence of a living organism from non-living matter - i.e. abiogenesis.

A virus? More than purely chemical, just a little below life. Kinda half-way in between.

A cyano bacteria? It is not even an eukaryote, but a prokaryote.

Cyanobacteria /saɪˌænoʊbækˈtɪəriə/, also known as Cyanophyta, are a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis and are the only photosynthetic prokaryotes able to produce oxygen. The name cyanobacteria comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός, romanized: kyanós, lit. 'blue').
Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia

p.s. The cyanobacteria appears to have originated in freshwater or a terrestrial environment

I hope you don't mean you want to see someone put some chemicals together and have the thing get up and walk away. I'm sure abiogenesis is more subtle than that and there is plenty of evidence that purely chemical reactions are a part of many simple life forms.

Bacteria employ "quorum sensing" to take coordinated actions.

Abstract
Quorum sensing is the regulation of gene expression in response to fluctuations in cell-population density. Quorum sensing bacteria produce and release chemical signal molecules called autoinducers that increase in concentration as a function of cell density. The detection of a minimal threshold stimulatory concentration of an autoinducer leads to an alteration in gene expression

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11544353

And life.

 

[paddoboy]

But, loath though I am to mention personalities in a science thread, I cannot avoid noting that I am again being maligned by pb, who is - yet again - seeing the world through the lens of his own absurd and tedious vendettas, instead of focusing on the science. What he has however correctly discerned (and evidently resents) is that I recognise that, unlike himself, Q-reeus actually knows some physics, whatever the (to my mind crank) ideas he may have in areas like this one.

Yes, shame about you exchemist that you totally lack the intestinal fortitude of the actual science in favour of your mythical vendettas. And even more shame that you lack the intestinal fortitude to recognise the vendettas aginst my person by your "like" and of course another chief god botherer despite his crank ideas. And thirdly even more outstanding shame with regards to your own silly hypocrisy in questioning my maligning of your self, after your own maligning of me. Maybe you should grow up?
You take it easy, OK?