Science and first life

mcap
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Science and first life

 I have had many conversations with both scientists and high school grads who say the thought of us being created by someone or something is ludicrous and that because I believe this I also believe in fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.But every time I pose this question I get "well uh science isn't researching this  and la di da la di da.

    My question is this:If humans came from whatever you say we came from,show me proof of first dna,of first reproducing cells.These things didn't just pop up one day and begin processing.You can use all the 10.00 dollar scientific terms you want,I want PROOF of where and when this started.I think someone that says we came from a pile of goo is more likely to believe in fairies than someone that believes in creation.All arguments for or against are welcome.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote: I have had many

mcap wrote:
I have had many conversations with both scientists and high school grads who say the thought of us being created by someone or something is ludicrous and that because I believe this I also believe in fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.But every time I pose this question I get "well uh science isn't researching this  and la di da la di da.
I guess you could get that answer.  The answer I would give you, if you had asked how life began and were coming from the point of view of evolution would be that the science of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.  That study is called abiogenesis.  If you're not familiar with it, there are several hypothesis out there.  There have also been important advances recently in forming RNA from their component pieces in environments that are not disimilar to those that would have allowed RNA to form billions of years ago.

 

Quote:
My question is this:If humans came from whatever you say we came from,show me proof of first dna,of first reproducing cells.
Well, these things have to do with evolution.  First, if you want to know where life came from you have to look further back than DNA.  Understandably you're asking the questions from a very ignorant place.  Granted, I ask questions of biology from a rather ignorant place too, but reading a book or a journal article or a study is not a bad place to start if you want information.  Second, we're not going to find 'first reproducing cells'.  Individual cells very rarely, if ever, fossilize.  And if you want first cells, you have billions of years of geologic change to go through during which time any fossilized thing may be destroyed.  We have barely found anything older than a few hundred million years old and the oldest found ever, I believe, were fossils of bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago (an incredibly rare find).

Quote:
These things didn't just pop up one day and begin processing.
You mean that life doesn't just appear one day?  Well, no, it's an incredibly gradual process.  I highly recommend you read up on abiogenisis.

Quote:
You can use all the 10.00 dollar scientific terms you want,I want PROOF of where and when this started.
Well, I can't give you that.  That doesn't mean that you're correct to believe in creation, though.  We have inference, extrapolation; indirect evidence.  We know that evolution occurrs.  You're not talking about evolution, though.  You are talking about genisis versus abiogenesis.  The evidence we have for evolution and the inference and extrapolation based on what we can observe suggests that life started some 4 billion years ago and has evoled to the currently extant forms.

Quote:
I think someone that says we came from a pile of goo is more likely to believe in fairies than someone that believes in creation.
I don't think we came from a pile of goo.  To believe in the relevant truth of the hypotheses for abiogenesis, though, is far more reasonable than attributing our existence and the existence of all other life to creation by an entity which cannot even be probed by the tools we use which are efficacious in probing everything else in this universe and which have led us to amazing discoveries and technology.  I don't think you're likely to believe in faeries or unicorns because you believe in creation; you are likely to believe in something much more unlikely than either of those things -god(s).

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote: I have had many

mcap wrote:

 I have had many conversations with both scientists and high school grads who say the thought of us being created by someone or something is ludicrous and that because I believe this I also believe in fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.But every time I pose this question I get "well uh science isn't researching this  and la di da la di da.

    My question is this:If humans came from whatever you say we came from,show me proof of first dna,of first reproducing cells.These things didn't just pop up one day and begin processing.You can use all the 10.00 dollar scientific terms you want,I want PROOF of where and when this started.I think someone that says we came from a pile of goo is more likely to believe in fairies than someone that believes in creation.All arguments for or against are welcome.

No, these things did not just pop into existence. No one here claims they did. Things popping into existence is your viewpoint, believer.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Well, I can't

Thomathy wrote:

Well, I can't give you that.  That doesn't mean that you're correct to believe in creation, though.  We have inference, extrapolation; indirect evidence.  We know that evolution occurrs.  You're not talking about evolution, though.  You are talking about genisis versus abiogenesis.  The evidence we have for evolution and the inference and extrapolation based on what we can observe suggests that life started some 4 billion years ago and has evoled to the currently extant forms.

 

What Thomathy said.  There are rules that atoms follow.  It's in their nature.  By observing how they behave in the lab we can come up with reasonable hypotheses as to how they might form in nature, such as the RNA world hypothesis.  I'm over-simplifying greatly here but even the ease with which amino acids form, without intervention, suggests that the building blocks for an RNA world weren't difficult to find.

 

So to repeat Thomathy's words; we have inference and extrapolation from indirect evidence.  Anyone claiming they had PROOF (why the capitals?) of a process that occured 3.9 billion years ago would have a tough job on their hands.  The best you can do is come up with a reasonable conclusion that best fits all the available evidence.

 

We can make reasonable conclusions about abiogenesis from what we see in the world today.  No such claim can be made about the genesis story.  And if you're going to be cocky and come in here demanding proof from billions of years ago, then you prove to me that god created the world.  In fact, screw that, I'll be nice.  Show me how you can make a reasonable inference that god created the world.

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anyone claiming that it is

Anyone claiming that it is more reasonable to believe that something of greater intelligence than ourselves created us, rather than just our emergence from simpler life which in turn emerged from non-living matter, has a serious logical problem. 

If complex intelligent things can only come from more powerful, more intelligent things, that can't work, because there is no way the first intelligent being can come into existence, so it cannot be true.

If something as vast and powerful and intelligent as a God can just somehow exist without requiring a 'creator', then the emergence of life and mere humans from natural processes is a trivial problem.

'God' is an impossibility.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 DNA is a complex molecule,

 DNA is a complex molecule, but it doesn't have anything that fossilizes.  You're never going to find "pre-DNA fossils."  In order to get a grasp on what probably happened, scientists are doing their best to literally recreate it, and they've come damn close.  Only recently, they solved a decades old problem of how to get certain chemicals to self-assemble into the literal building blocks of RNA.  The neat thing is that all they had to do was not only replicate the chemical composition of early earth, but the seasonal changes as well.  By adding water, letting it evaporate, adding water, letting it evaporate, etc, they facilitated the self-assembly of chemical molecules into those necessary for building RNA.

As Bob has already pointed out, anything except the gradual formation of life is kind of daft.  It literally goes against everything scientists know about the universe.  Let me make sure you understand that.  Absolutely every single principle scientists know about the universe demands that simplicity had to have moved to complexity.  In asking for a complex creator, you're asking for millions and millions of interconnected scientific principles to be not just wrong, but horribly, grossly, and completely wrong.  The physics that let us send spaceships the size of Volkswagons through the rings of Saturn?  Wrong.  The Chemistry and Biology that made penicilin?  Wrong.  All lucky guesses.

You pick which seems more likely.  A concept invented by non-scientific cave men is actually right, or as man got smarter, he figured out what really happened.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Anyone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anyone claiming that it is more reasonable to believe that something of greater intelligence than ourselves created us, rather than just our emergence from simpler life which in turn emerged from non-living matter, has a serious logical problem. 

If complex intelligent things can only come from more powerful, more intelligent things, that can't work, because there is no way the first intelligent being can come into existence, so it cannot be true.

If something as vast and powerful and intelligent as a God can just somehow exist without requiring a 'creator', then the emergence of life and mere humans from natural processes is a trivial problem.

'God' is an impossibility.

The Christian God certainly is. If it did exist, people are its worst representatives. By giving God so many infinite properties, they're not only limiting God's own existance, but severing their relationship with it. Now, if God wasn't all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, parts of the bible actually start making more sense. Still bullshit, of course, but slightly more believable.

If I were to believe in a creator, this would logically make the most sense to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvISV0wGusU


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'God' is an

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is an impossibility.

You are just making a meaningless bald claim.

Assuming creation of the universe from nothing (even quantum fluctuations are not ex-nilio since physics and a false vacuum need to exist) is less logical then assuming a preexisting non-contingent being such as God. With an intelligent non-contingent being such as God you are at least conforming to what we logically know to be true from science - simple cause and effect in the natural world. 

 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: In order

Hambydammit wrote:

 In order to get a grasp on what probably happened, scientists are doing their best to literally recreate it, and they've come damn close.

Close? This is simple self deception and wishful thinking. You want so badly to believe that reality fits your worldview you can not even acknowledge the huge problems still to be overcome in origin of life research. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is an impossibility.

 

You are just making a meaningless bald claim.

Assuming creation of the universe from nothing (even quantum fluctuations are not ex-nilio since physics and a false vacuum need to exist) is less logical then assuming a preexisting non-contingent being such as God. With an intelligent non-contingent being such as God you are at least conforming to what we logically know to be true from science - simple cause and effect in the natural world. 

 

 

Except, of course, you exclude God from the cause and effect relationship. Or did God have a creator as well?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Close? This is

 

Quote:
Close? This is simple self deception and wishful thinking. You want so badly to believe that reality fits your worldview you can not even acknowledge the huge problems still to be overcome in origin of life research.

Well.. yes... very close.  As you should be aware, DNA and RNA are not the only possible replicators in the universe.  There are a lot of possible (that is, chemically possible) organic molecules that could conceivably self replicate.  For that matter, there are almost certainly multiple ways in which pre-RNA could have come to exist.  It would be disingenuous for a scientist who had literally facilitated the self assembly of full blown RNA to say that he had discovered the way life must have originated.

What we have done is create plausible early earth-like conditions in the laboratory, and pre-RNA organic molecules have self-assembled.  This doesn't prove that this is the way it happened, but it does prove that pre-RNA can self-assemble.  This has two major implications.  First, it further narrows the corner that God has been painted into.  Fifty years ago, it was asserted that RNA was too complex to exist without a creator.  Since then, there have been several well described methods in which RNA could be the pinnacle of a long line of much smaller steps, each of which is easily plausible.  When this route got closed off to creationists, they claimed that the amino acids themselves could not possibly self-assemble, but damn if we haven't proven them wrong on that count, too.

Now, all that's really left is the rather hollow claim that since we only have the outline of how it happened, not the blow by blow description of every single step, it's impossible.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, what comes off as

OK, what comes off as really obvious to me is that in your first paragraph, you assert that science is not researching the origin of life and then in your second paragraph, you ask for proof of abiogenesis. Pardon me but if it was not being researched, then how could the proof of what you are asking for exist?

Seriously, that is just poor debating. In any case, it fails because science has been actively researching the origin of life for about 60 years. The general idea is to set up the conditions that probably existed on the early earth and then let things happen for a while and see what comes of it.

As it happens, we have yet to produce something that is unarguably alive. However, we have produced all the basic molecules that are involved in life such as amino acids, sugars and all of the building blocks for DNA/RNA.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Close? This is simple self deception and wishful thinking. You want so badly to believe that reality fits your worldview you can not even acknowledge the huge problems still to be overcome in origin of life research.

Well.. yes... very close.  As you should be aware, DNA and RNA are not the only possible replicators in the universe.  There are a lot of possible (that is, chemically possible) organic molecules that could conceivably self replicate.

Like what, and how does that do anything at all for your case? You have just made your case more difficult by requiring a more convoluted path to DNA/RNA/Protein based biochemistry. 

 

Quote:

What we have done is create plausible early earth-like conditions in the laboratory, and pre-RNA organic molecules have self-assembled.  This doesn't prove that this is the way it happened, but it does prove that pre-RNA can self-assemble.  This has two major implications.  First, it further narrows the corner that God has been painted into.  Fifty years ago, it was asserted that RNA was too complex to exist without a creator.  Since then, there have been several well described methods in which RNA could be the pinnacle of a long line of much smaller steps, each of which is easily plausible. 

You are failing to comply with your own criticism. 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Like what, and how

 

Quote:
Like what, and how does that do anything at all for your case? You have just made your case more difficult by requiring a more convoluted path to DNA/RNA/Protein based biochemistry.

Go check out some science journals at your local university.  Do you understand biochemistry?  If not, there's no point in asking the question.

I said nothing of convolution.  I said there are many potential paths that life might have taken.  You've got things backwards.  Multiple paths make it much easier to establish the plausibility of abiogenesis.  If you have a die with a million sides on it, and you have to roll a 1 to win a game, you might as well say that you're probably not going to win.  But if there are fifty or a hundred thousand potential numbers that would win... well.. duh.

So carbon, then, becomes critical in understanding how this works.  Carbon forms chains -- long ones -- and it bonds in ways that make it uniquely likely to form immensely complex molecules.  As proponents of creation are fond of pointing out, replicators are immensely complex.  

Again... duh.   The answer's right in front of you.  Replicators aren't magic.  They're just really complex molecules that behave in self-perpetuating ways, and in a little under a century of research, we've facilitated the self-assembly of virtually all the building blocks for replicators.

My point earlier was that even if we facilitate the assembly of a replicator, we have no guarantees that the process we find will be the exact process that happened on earth.  For all we know, there were competing replicators before RNA, and RNA won by simple selective math.  (In fact, there are a few scientists who are quite fond of that idea.)  This doesn't hurt abiogenesis.  It makes it that much more likely.

Quote:
You are failing to comply with your own criticism.

Ok, smarty pants:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/chemical_evolution

The principles explained in this essay will give you a rough understanding of the kind of biochemical processes that were continuing through RNA.  The same chemical processes are, in one way or another, central to any pre-RNA replicator.  That is, carbon behaves like carbon, whether it's in RNA or not.  Any pre-RNA replicator would still obey the laws of organic chemistry.  Using these observable laws, we can make very reasonable predictions about what kind of chemical arrangements could conceivably self replicate.  Unfortunately, carbon is such a uniquely flexible molecule, it's probably not possible for us to ever say with certainty that this or that path was the only one that could have led to RNA.  In truth, there are probably quite a few paths that could converge on the same outcome, in much the same way that eyes have evolved separately more than a dozen times in the last three billion years.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Go check

Hambydammit wrote:

Go check out some science journals at your local university.  Do you understand biochemistry?  If not, there's no point in asking the question.

I said nothing of convolution.  I said there are many potential paths that life might have taken.  You've got things backwards.  Multiple paths make it much easier to establish the plausibility of abiogenesis.  If you have a die with a million sides on it, and you have to roll a 1 to win a game, you might as well say that you're probably not going to win.  But if there are fifty or a hundred thousand potential numbers that would win... well.. duh.

So carbon, then, becomes critical in understanding how this works.  Carbon forms chains -- long ones -- and it bonds in ways that make it uniquely likely to form immensely complex molecules.  As proponents of creation are fond of pointing out, replicators are immensely complex.  

Again... duh.   The answer's right in front of you.  Replicators aren't magic.  They're just really complex molecules that behave in self-perpetuating ways, and in a little under a century of research, we've facilitated the self-assembly of virtually all the building blocks for replicators.

My point earlier was that even if we facilitate the assembly of a replicator, we have no guarantees that the process we find will be the exact process that happened on earth.  For all we know, there were competing replicators before RNA, and RNA won by simple selective math.  (In fact, there are a few scientists who are quite fond of that idea.)  This doesn't hurt abiogenesis.  It makes it that much more likely.

 

You really should dump that ad hominem crutch of ours. Not only is it unbecoming, it is unwise since it perpetuates the self delusion of a weak opponent.

No, I'm afraid you don't understand. All life is fundamentally the same on earth today. The greater an origin theory deviates from this paradigm the more convoluted the explanation becomes in how we reached the ultimate and only surviving example of biochemistry.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
You are failing to comply with your own criticism.

Ok, smarty pants:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/chemical_evolution

 

Ya, I read that one awhile ago. This one too.  I guess you missed the unfinished discussion I had with the author.

 

FYI - There are no citations.

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Gee OrdinaryClay, do

Gee OrdinaryClay, do you really not get what we are telling you? The fact is that it is trivial to set up laboratory apparatus that simulate the conditions which we think were fairly like the early earth. Under those experiments, it has really proved to be trivial to make all of the building blocks of life. Amino Acids, Sugars, Fatty Acids and every other basic chemical. They all have been produced experimentally in sterile glass ware.

 

OK, so now you have these chemicals moving around in the sea and in the atmosphere. They are going to combine in every way possible to make slightly more complicated molecules. If you want a simple analogy, think of them as sort of like Lego bricks (except that they have many more options for possible combinations).

 

Now it happens that most of the ways that Lego bricks can combine are just not going to hold together in stable structures. They will fall apart back to the basic units. However, some will come together in more or less stable structures fully at random. You don't need a designer for this part of the process, it just happens.

 

Actually, what Hamby was telling you is relevant here. There are no small number of scientists who feel that at this point, many different structures came together that were sort of stable. If there is any reason why life on earth is mostly similar, it would be because the most stable configurations dominated the environment and tended to crowd out the less stable ones.

 

As more quantities of the more stable dimers come together, they are going to become the buliding blocks for the next level of development and so on. Given enough time, structures that have hundreds and then thousands of sub-units are going to form. At every level of this process, that which works best will dominate.

 

Eventually, these chemical processes are going to become complex enough that some of them will form basically what amounts to a bag around themselves composed of simple fats that are more permeable to the most basic building blocks and less permeable to the more complicated chemicals that they are competing with in the general environment. Then the process can shift to something rather more like primitive self assembly in a controlled environment.

 

We still are not at the point here where we can say “this is life”. Actually, I don't believe that anyone who follows this stuff seriously thinks that there is a point where one may reasonably draw that line but whatever.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Ya, I

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Ya, I read that one awhile ago. This one too.  I guess you missed the unfinished discussion I had with the author.

 

FYI - There are no citations.

 Could you point us toward that discussion?  I'd be interested to hear what you had to say about the article. M

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You really should

 

Quote:
You really should dump that ad hominem crutch of ours.

You should learn what ad hominem is.  I haven't commited one.

Quote:
Not only is it unbecoming, it is unwise since it perpetuates the self delusion of a weak opponent.

You're saying that your misinformed perception that I have engaged in ad hominem is perpetuating your self delusions?  Correct.

Quote:
No, I'm afraid you don't understand. All life is fundamentally the same on earth today. The greater an origin theory deviates from this paradigm the more convoluted the explanation becomes in how we reached the ultimate and only surviving example of biochemistry.

I wish you realized that everyone speaking to you at this point has studied this subject, and it's obvious that you have not.

Quote:
FYI - There are no citations.

I already explained this to you.  Go to any university you want.  Look up any bio-chemistry or biology journal you want.  Search "abiogenesis."  You will get hundreds of citations.  Go to a university textbook store.  Buy a book.  Read it.  Any textbook will have a huge... HUGE... list of citations.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:FYI

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
FYI - There are no citations.

I already explained this to you.  Go to any university you want.  Look up any bio-chemistry or biology journal you want.  Search "abiogenesis."  You will get hundreds of citations.  Go to a university textbook store.  Buy a book.  Read it.  Any textbook will have a huge... HUGE... list of citations.

 

OC, you could have had a point about there being no citations in either of the essays under discussion.  One of the backbones of scientific discussion is referencing the material you're talking about.  You lose your point because of two things; your argument for a special creator based on nothing but you're feelings on the matter (no citations...) and your failure to understand that not everything needs a citation.  Textbooks often don't use any citations as do a million and one articles.  Why?  Because of the implicit understanding that the information presented is not intended for peer review but can be checked against numerous other reviewed sources.  As Hamby states, it's very easy to check the facts that he and DG discuss.

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Gee OrdinaryClay, do you really not get what we are telling you? The fact is that it is trivial to set up laboratory apparatus that simulate the conditions which we think were fairly like the early earth. Under those experiments, it has really proved to be trivial to make all of the building blocks of life. Amino Acids, Sugars, Fatty Acids and every other basic chemical. They all have been produced experimentally in sterile glass ware.

 

OK, so now you have these chemicals moving around in the sea and in the atmosphere. They are going to combine in every way possible to make slightly more complicated molecules. If you want a simple analogy, think of them as sort of like Lego bricks (except that they have many more options for possible combinations). 

You misunderstand chemistry.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:OC, you

MichaelMcF wrote:

OC, you could have had a point about there being no citations in either of the essays under discussion.  One of the backbones of scientific discussion is referencing the material you're talking about.  You lose your point because of two things; your argument for a special creator based on nothing but you're feelings on the matter (no citations...) and your failure to understand that not everything needs a citation.  Textbooks often don't use any citations as do a million and one articles.  Why?  Because of the implicit understanding that the information presented is not intended for peer review but can be checked against numerous other reviewed sources.  As Hamby states, it's very easy to check the facts that he and DG discuss.

Then it should be obvious without citations to anyone who is knowledgeable in this area that the origin of life research is mostly speculation and that the greatest critics of the science are researchers in the field. The laboratory results do show some simple results, but no results have demonstrated the RNA world theory. None have jumped the gap from chemistry to the stochastic process of living evolution.

We have a planet on which a huge range of environments representing all stages of evolution through a huge variety of both harsh and common environments. Yet, we do not see any environment anywhere, or even in the lab where life spontaneously occurs. On the one hand the SETI crowd screams it is common and inevitable, yet we don't see abiogenesis happening anywhere on earth or in our labs.

 


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Then it

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Then it should be obvious without citations to anyone who is knowledgeable in this area that the origin of life research is mostly speculation and that the greatest critics of the science are researchers in the field. The laboratory results do show some simple results, but no results have demonstrated the RNA world theory.

See now this is the point that someone can ask for a citation - which critics are you referring to?  I'm not meaning to be difficult, I'd like to read some of their articles.  And which particular "science" are they criticising?

As far as I knew it was the RNA world hypothesis, not theory.  Am I wrong anyone?

 

OrdinaryClay wrote:

None have jumped the gap from chemistry to the stochastic process of living evolution.

 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Current estimates on the beginnings of life about 3.8 billion years ago.  So we have 700 million years for the first cells to arise.  We've been looking forensically at the primordial soup for, what, 85 years?  Imagine not being able to accurately replicate a process that happened over 3.8 billion years ago, with limited knowledge, in 10 millionths of a percent of the time required for the original process.  Scientists are dicks eh?

 

OrdinaryClay wrote:

We have a planet on which a huge range of environments representing all stages of evolution through a huge variety of both harsh and common environments. Yet, we do not see any environment anywhere, or even in the lab where life spontaneously occurs. On the one hand the SETI crowd screams it is common and inevitable, yet we don't see abiogenesis happening anywhere on earth or in our labs.

 

It's not a spontaneous process for a start, so let's hit that one right on the head. 

The environment you look at depends on the theory you're testing.  Are we going biotic shocked soup?  Hydrothermal vent?  nuclear beach?  Which environment in particular do you think we should be studying?  Even if you find the enviroment that matches your theory how do you test for contamination? 

In world teeming with life that you're still trying desperately to understand how do you spot the formation of new life?  How do you see it in the noise?  How do you see it at all?  If you do see it, how are you sure that it's not a microbe that's survived millions of years?

At what point does non-life become life?  What process would you be wathcing before you could answer this question?.

For us to see life form - using anyone of the outlined hypotheses - would require us to be able to constantly monitor a spot on earth that met the right conditions and, crucially, had never been exposed to life.  We'd also need a 24 hour watch on that sucker.  And you'd need to be monitoring everything the size of a microbe or lower.

Still want to bitch about us not seeing it happen?  Or do you want to point me in the direction of your nearest abiogenesis watch?

 

Here's the thing that bugs me about this sort of criticism.  The cry of "we've not seen it, you haven't proved it, stop talking about it" is childish in the extreme.  What do you hope to accomplish with this?  It's just another bad god-of-the-gaps argument.  Of course we haven't seen it.  It's why the RNA world hypothesis is just that.  That doesn't mean it's not a reasonable hypothesis based on our current understanding of chemistry.  That's the beauty of science. 

We have several hypotheses for the rise of life.  Men and women all over the globe are currently working on experiments to test each and every one.  We get excited about each new set of "simple results" because they open the next door of experimentation.  We now know that amino acids form easily.  We know that an RNA-like molecule can form under very simple wetting and drying - seasonal - conditions.  What does it prove?  nothing.  What does it give us?  two bits of evidence that suggest the hypothesis is still a reasonable one.  So the experiments continue.

Just because we've not seen it yet doesn't mean we throw it out completely.  We keep testing until we're sure that it's true, or there's absolutely no way it's true - and even then we admit we might be wrong.  What we don't do is create special circumstances for things that don't require explanation and assume that's that.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

OC, you could have had a point about there being no citations in either of the essays under discussion.  One of the backbones of scientific discussion is referencing the material you're talking about.  You lose your point because of two things; your argument for a special creator based on nothing but you're feelings on the matter (no citations...) and your failure to understand that not everything needs a citation.  Textbooks often don't use any citations as do a million and one articles.  Why?  Because of the implicit understanding that the information presented is not intended for peer review but can be checked against numerous other reviewed sources.  As Hamby states, it's very easy to check the facts that he and DG discuss.

 

Then it should be obvious without citations to anyone who is knowledgeable in this area that the origin of life research is mostly speculation and that the greatest critics of the science are researchers in the field. The laboratory results do show some simple results, but no results have demonstrated the RNA world theory. None have jumped the gap from chemistry to the stochastic process of living evolution.

We have a planet on which a huge range of environments representing all stages of evolution through a huge variety of both harsh and common environments. Yet, we do not see any environment anywhere, or even in the lab where life spontaneously occurs. On the one hand the SETI crowd screams it is common and inevitable, yet we don't see abiogenesis happening anywhere on earth or in our labs.

 

 

 

So...because the studies haven't been completed in this area to your satisfaction, Magic Man did it?

Interesting

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Answers

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, so now you have these chemicals moving around in the sea and in the atmosphere. They are going to combine in every way possible to make slightly more complicated molecules. If you want a simple analogy, think of them as sort of like Lego bricks (except that they have many more options for possible combinations). 

You misunderstand chemistry.

Oh, and please clarify this statement.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So...because

jcgadfly wrote:

So...because the studies haven't been completed in this area to your satisfaction, Magic Man did it?

Interesting

 

And my whole rant at the end gets summarized for me! Laughing out loud

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss