I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
billvon said:
======================================
Public release date: 9-Jan-2009

Scripps Research Institute
Scripps scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely
Findings could inform biochemical questions about how life began

Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
=========================================

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php
Click to expand...
thanks for the link.

about RNA.
i have read that small populations of RNA are not viable.
shoot me for not bookmarking the page.
i'll try to find it though.
 
leopold99 said:
it did not fall by ANY verification of evolution.
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is not evolution.

leopold99 said:
it seems so rational and sane, but despite mans best efforts it STILL manages to defy solution.
Click to expand...
So do functional analogs of the water reducing center in PS2, and you can imagine the amount of money being thrown at that. What's you point?
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
That's silly. Racemic precursors do not necessarily result in racemic products. Ask any chemist.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I was going to raise this yesterday, but when I looked in the thread was locked.
 
Last edited:
Trippy said:
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Click to expand...
it didn't fall by verification of abiogenesis either.
So do functional analogs of the water reducing center in PS2, and you can imagine the amount of money being thrown at that. What's you point?
Click to expand...
the point is science hasn't verified abiogenesis possible.
some would say the fact we are here is verification enough, but is it?
 
leopold99 said:
the point is science hasn't verified abiogenesis possible.
some would say the fact we are here is verification enough, but is it?
Click to expand...
And my point is that science also hasn't verified that the synthesis of the water reducing center in PS2 is possible - by the standard you're using here, and yet clearly it must be.
 
I'm going to reiterate here a point I made in another thread:

Trippy said:
Again, this issue is a non-starter.

Carbon rich meteorites have been found to have an excess of L-Enantiomers over D-Enantiomers in carbon rich meteorites, and there are several explanations that have been proposed for this observation - including circularly polarized light as a result of supernovae.

However, recently, the observation was made that the greater the enrichment of L-isovaline in these meteorites, the greater the amount of water alteration that appeared to have taken place. This is important to note because, at least in the case of isovaline, L-isovaline is slightly less soluble in water than D-isovaline.

Here is a paper from 2009 discussing the discovery of excess L-Isovaline in the Murchison Meteorite and the Orgueil Meteorite.
Enrichment of the amino acid L-isovaline by aqueous alteration on CI and CM meteorite parent bodies

And here's a NASA press release (there will be a paper associated with it somewhere, I simply lack the time to track it down) that exteds the initial findings to a wider range of meteorites.
More Asteroids Could Have Made Life's Ingredients

So, like the fixable nitrogen issue, this issue is a non-starter. You'll also note that there's an extra added layer of parsimony in all of this (to put it one way) in that the excess of L-Amino acids has come from the same source as the ammonia - indeed, they've both been found in the same meteorite.
Click to expand...
Trippy 2775021/59
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
Well, the debate started with evolution, and the Christian argued that since Abiogenesis hasn't been proven to be possible by natural means (whether or not this argument is true, I am not qualified to say), life could not have existed in any form in the first place without a creator, and so evolution could not have happened as explained by science because there would be no life to evolve from in the first place.
Click to expand...

Their argument is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

Essentially, they say: "Either abiogenesis is true or Creationism is true".

The problem is that by "Creationism" they mean one very specific theory - this case the Christian version of the "God did it" Creation story from the bible. But there are many other religious creation stories. So it should be more like this:

"Either life developed from non-life by natural processes OR the biblical Creation story is true OR the Great Green Arkleseizure created life OR Allah created life OR Vishnu created life OR the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life OR advanced alien robots created life OR ..."

So, their argument doesn't help in any way to support their Christian beliefs in the bible Creation story.
 
billvon said:
Of course. Life requires those chemical systems, so determining how those chemical systems began operating and began to self-organize is essential to understanding how life began.
Click to expand...
you are attempting to prove abiogeneis - not make data conform the idea of abiogenesis.

IOW its 100% begging the question on your behalf to say determining how the chemical byproducts of life can be synthesized is the path to determining how life can be synthesized ...moreso since despite all this positing it has only ever been properly established that life is seen to arise from life



The above IS urea synthesis, plus adenine synthesis, plus lipid synthesis etc etc. In other words, it's how nature generated the precursors necessary for life to begin.
Click to expand...
and just like urea synthesis, it amounts to nothing in terms of establishing how life can be established from matter.
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
so your stool, urine, sweat and mucus is life?

How can you tell when it dies?

How does it mature and reproduce offspring?

:bugeye:
Click to expand...

Don't flush your toilet for a few months, and report back to us on the outcome.
 
I think what LG is saying is that your stool, urine, sweat and mucus is all part of god, and so should be revered as such.
 
"Either life developed from non-life by natural processes OR the biblical Creation story is true OR the Great Green Arkleseizure created life OR Allah created life OR Vishnu created life OR the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life OR advanced alien robots created life OR ..."
Click to expand...

Or the answer is unknown or unknowable.
 
"And NOTHING has verified that Creation by God is possible. For a start, God would have to be verified, and nobody has done that."

One would claim that you're asserting a false dichotomy. If not taken into context, that is. You're, in a way, building up your argument towards Naturalism by saying that Creationism is flawed. Something that one could do to the claim "if life wasn't created by no creator, it must have been created by a creator", right? And maybe they are incorrect (there are theories that can be devised that exclude both of these), I've just never been fond of how quickly people want to cry "fallacy!" Especially since, if I recall, the Theist in question joined into a debate on Naturalistic belief. To debate whether or not scientific beliefs are valid, whilst believing for other reasons that they are not, does not automatically mean that they are trying to validate to the other person their own beliefs. Maybe I'm wrong, and this is blatantly a fallacy, and I need to learn more about fallacies. It just seems to me (especially coming from Naturalistic Rationalists) that the fallacy flag is thrown waaaay too much.

To the OP: If you are claiming that there is proof of your belief without knowing it, I would think you more intellectually dishonest than most Theists I've talked to (most I've talked to claim that there are things about their beliefs that they don't know, nor claim to know). If this is the case, then honestly, the best course of action is probably to tell Theists, "I don't really know exactly the specifics of my belief, but I believe it because I've seen other people believe it so strongly, people that I'm naturally inclined to trust." ....if that statement is true, I mean. I hope I misunderstood the situation, and if I did, I'm sorry for any offense that you may have taken.
 
Wait, James R, I just realized that I don't remember as much of the conversation as I did when I started typing that response hours ago (highly emotional phone called paused it). I'm exhausted, and think it's probably likely I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, fallacy flag is thrown a lot more than necessary in my opinion, but I don't think it best I quoted you in expressing that belief.
 
spidergoat said:
Are you saying there is part of your body that isn't chemical?
Click to expand...
lol
no

but you did say that life and the chemicals it uses are non-different ... which is of course a totally stupid thing to say

Policeman : I have some bad news I am afraid - your husband has been hit by a truck and died instantly... on the bright side however you will be able to be reunited with him since we managed to scrape some of his intestinal fluid from the back wheels.

Anyone feeling warm and fuzzy?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top