Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.

I think it is a great step forward for abiogenesis proponents. i haven't read the article but read 4 news articles on the experiments. Some say they found all 4 DNA nucleotides and the other says they found all 4 RNA nucleotides. At any rate i would agree with Benner it that it is probably the only mechanic that produces all nucleotides.

This still doesn't convince of Abiogenesis as the better more likely scenario. I just love how these things are written.

Hypothetical Event (Late Heavy Bombardment), assume Earth was full of formamide, Benner admits too much water was on Earth, so this reaction happened on mars and the chemicals were then transported to Earth. This assume Mars had formamide, says impacts so strong as to force material out of mars and towards earth happened often enough for life to form.

A leading RNA first theory proposed reactive phosphate was available by meteorites hitting water.

So it's not just a matter of looking at one little corner based on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which don't have evidence in the geological record, saying this is how it happened.

How about one plausible possible even barely likely to have happened that would produce a non-living clump of matter into something that would show any precursor to life.

Some Atheist suggest it is enough just to have the building blocks possible by a combination of meteorites, deep sea vents, glaciers, volcanoes, shallow puddles evaporating to make the building blocks.

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 1:11:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You just answered your own question with a strawman fallacy.

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

And, what discovery exactly have scientists found in which a viking sword was indeed shown to be forged strictly from lava and meteorites? Seriously.

This is why we don't take ID seriously.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 1:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.

I think it is a great step forward for abiogenesis proponents. i haven't read the article but read 4 news articles on the experiments. Some say they found all 4 DNA nucleotides and the other says they found all 4 RNA nucleotides. At any rate i would agree with Benner it that it is probably the only mechanic that produces all nucleotides.

This still doesn't convince of Abiogenesis as the better more likely scenario. I just love how these things are written.

Hypothetical Event (Late Heavy Bombardment), assume Earth was full of formamide, Benner admits too much water was on Earth, so this reaction happened on mars and the chemicals were then transported to Earth. This assume Mars had formamide, says impacts so strong as to force material out of mars and towards earth happened often enough for life to form.

A leading RNA first theory proposed reactive phosphate was available by meteorites hitting water.

So it's not just a matter of looking at one little corner based on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which don't have evidence in the geological record, saying this is how it happened.

How about one plausible possible even barely likely to have happened that would produce a non-living clump of matter into something that would show any precursor to life.

Some Atheist suggest it is enough just to have the building blocks possible by a combination of meteorites, deep sea vents, glaciers, volcanoes, shallow puddles evaporating to make the building blocks.

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

You seem to have a bit of a Frankensteinian view of life -- as though life requires some sort of catalyst to breathe life into otherwise dead material. But, the fact is that life isn't quite as magical, and certainly not as miraculous as it was at one point thought to be. Life is actually a natural characteristic of the matter on this planet. It is intrinsic. Particularly with the conditions that existed on Earth billions of years ago, with all that matter present, it was literally only a matter of time.

All living things on this planet do not reduce to biological substances, per se. They all reduce to chemicals and elements, like everything else on this planet. The other difference between you and I, a cat, a rock, and some water, are the elements we comprise, how many of them we comprise, and the arrangement of that composition. Relatively simple combinations of element will exhibit lifelike qualities -- move on its own, pursue food, metabolize, combine with other similar but different molecules to create hybrids, and even divide.

It doesn't require imagining the spontaneous emergence of anything in the least bit complex. Something as complicated as a double-helix DNA strand undoubtedly took millions of years to manifest. Cells didn't always have mitochondria, so for a long time, they were ill equipped to even collect into multicellular organisms. Everything is a stepwise process, and it all takes time. But, it doesn't require a mysterious engineer, which would beg the same origin question -- where did it come from, how did it manifest, etc.? It's much more reasonable to ask those questions about ourselves and the matter around us.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 3:42:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 1:11:13 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You just answered your own question with a strawman fallacy.

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

And, what discovery exactly have scientists found in which a viking sword was indeed shown to be forged strictly from lava and meteorites? Seriously.

This is why we don't take ID seriously.

you missed the point. If scientist looked at a viking sword they would come up with hypothesis and scenarios explaining a natural cause of it. Scenarios just as plausible as what they do for Biological Life.

The difference is no one questions the intelligent design of a viking sword. Just biological life.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:36:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.

I think it is a great step forward for abiogenesis proponents. i haven't read the article but read 4 news articles on the experiments. Some say they found all 4 DNA nucleotides and the other says they found all 4 RNA nucleotides. At any rate i would agree with Benner it that it is probably the only mechanic that produces all nucleotides.

This still doesn't convince of Abiogenesis as the better more likely scenario. I just love how these things are written.

Hypothetical Event (Late Heavy Bombardment), assume Earth was full of formamide, Benner admits too much water was on Earth, so this reaction happened on mars and the chemicals were then transported to Earth. This assume Mars had formamide, says impacts so strong as to force material out of mars and towards earth happened often enough for life to form.

A leading RNA first theory proposed reactive phosphate was available by meteorites hitting water.

So it's not just a matter of looking at one little corner based on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which don't have evidence in the geological record, saying this is how it happened.

How about one plausible possible even barely likely to have happened that would produce a non-living clump of matter into something that would show any precursor to life.

Some Atheist suggest it is enough just to have the building blocks possible by a combination of meteorites, deep sea vents, glaciers, volcanoes, shallow puddles evaporating to make the building blocks.

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

In your hypothetical, how did the designer of the sword come about? You're only pushing the problem back one step, and then you run into the same issue. Whether your designer is aliens or a god, you will still need to explain their origins (and establish they exist) for ID to be a reasonable hypothesis.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:49:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:36:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.

I think it is a great step forward for abiogenesis proponents. i haven't read the article but read 4 news articles on the experiments. Some say they found all 4 DNA nucleotides and the other says they found all 4 RNA nucleotides. At any rate i would agree with Benner it that it is probably the only mechanic that produces all nucleotides.

This still doesn't convince of Abiogenesis as the better more likely scenario. I just love how these things are written.

Hypothetical Event (Late Heavy Bombardment), assume Earth was full of formamide, Benner admits too much water was on Earth, so this reaction happened on mars and the chemicals were then transported to Earth. This assume Mars had formamide, says impacts so strong as to force material out of mars and towards earth happened often enough for life to form.

A leading RNA first theory proposed reactive phosphate was available by meteorites hitting water.

So it's not just a matter of looking at one little corner based on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which don't have evidence in the geological record, saying this is how it happened.

How about one plausible possible even barely likely to have happened that would produce a non-living clump of matter into something that would show any precursor to life.

Some Atheist suggest it is enough just to have the building blocks possible by a combination of meteorites, deep sea vents, glaciers, volcanoes, shallow puddles evaporating to make the building blocks.

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

In your hypothetical, how did the designer of the sword come about? You're only pushing the problem back one step, and then you run into the same issue. Whether your designer is aliens or a god, you will still need to explain their origins (and establish they exist) for ID to be a reasonable hypothesis.

That would be a different question. And a different entity in question, wouldn't it be.

So when i answer and say the sword was intelligently designed by a viking, DOES anyone answer and say oh that is wrong because that explanation only explains the SWORD and does not explain the VIKING!

When a ball drops from a building we explain it with Gravity. Is Newtons formula's wrong because we DO not have an explanation or understanding for gravity?

If your house is a mess and all your valuables missing, I say it was a robber. Do you tell me I'm wrong because I can't identify the robber?

I'm in the ball park with an explanation for the missing items. THEN the question, a separate inquiry is WHO is the robber?

Repressively for any biological and intelligent designer the question would keep going back till finally a creator or intelligent designer would have to be non biological.

The question is how life on earth emerged. let's stay on topic. Just because the line of questioning might end in God is no reason not to ask the questions.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 1:51:42 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:18:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:27:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Laser-Zapping Experiment Simulates Beginnings of Life on Earth

http://www.livescience.com...

The reaction produced scalding temperatures of up to 7,640 degrees Fahrenheit (4,230 degrees Celsius), sending out a shock wave and spewing intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation. The chemical fireworks produced four of the nucleobases that collectively make up DNA and RNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.

I think it is a great step forward for abiogenesis proponents. i haven't read the article but read 4 news articles on the experiments. Some say they found all 4 DNA nucleotides and the other says they found all 4 RNA nucleotides. At any rate i would agree with Benner it that it is probably the only mechanic that produces all nucleotides.

This still doesn't convince of Abiogenesis as the better more likely scenario. I just love how these things are written.

Hypothetical Event (Late Heavy Bombardment), assume Earth was full of formamide, Benner admits too much water was on Earth, so this reaction happened on mars and the chemicals were then transported to Earth. This assume Mars had formamide, says impacts so strong as to force material out of mars and towards earth happened often enough for life to form.

A leading RNA first theory proposed reactive phosphate was available by meteorites hitting water.

So it's not just a matter of looking at one little corner based on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which don't have evidence in the geological record, saying this is how it happened.

How about one plausible possible even barely likely to have happened that would produce a non-living clump of matter into something that would show any precursor to life.

Some Atheist suggest it is enough just to have the building blocks possible by a combination of meteorites, deep sea vents, glaciers, volcanoes, shallow puddles evaporating to make the building blocks.

I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility. If probes find a light emitting diode on an asteroid. And nothing ever human made resembles it, will you say this is made by aliens or will you say it was made through natural process?

You know what science like this looks like? It looks like finding a viking sword and saying it was naturally made, so hypothesis and theories arise that explain in the lava flows of earth bombarded by meteorites the blade got hammered out and refined.

You seem to have a bit of a Frankensteinian view of life -- as though life requires some sort of catalyst to breathe life into otherwise dead material. But, the fact is that life isn't quite as magical, and certainly not as miraculous as it was at one point thought to be. Life is actually a natural characteristic of the matter on this planet. It is intrinsic. Particularly with the conditions that existed on Earth billions of years ago, with all that matter present, it was literally only a matter of time.

All living things on this planet do not reduce to biological substances, per se. They all reduce to chemicals and elements, like everything else on this planet. The other difference between you and I, a cat, a rock, and some water, are the elements we comprise, how many of them we comprise, and the arrangement of that composition. Relatively simple combinations of element will exhibit lifelike qualities -- move on its own, pursue food, metabolize, combine with other similar but different molecules to create hybrids, and even divide.

It doesn't require imagining the spontaneous emergence of anything in the least bit complex. Something as complicated as a double-helix DNA strand undoubtedly took millions of years to manifest. Cells didn't always have mitochondria, so for a long time, they were ill equipped to even collect into multicellular organisms. Everything is a stepwise process, and it all takes time. But, it doesn't require a mysterious engineer, which would beg the same origin question -- where did it come from, how did it manifest, etc.? It's much more reasonable to ask those questions about ourselves and the matter around us.

I understand the hypothetical process presented as abiogenesis. I understand it is a long time stepping process.

I'm saying there is no natural process that brings such elements into arrangement that could even begin to evolve into the life we see.

no plausible, possible, likely natural process can make a virus like assembly of matter.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:03:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The question is how life on earth emerged. let's stay on topic. Just because the line of questioning might end in God is no reason not to ask the questions.

"I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility."

My response was in line with your post.

"Repressively for any biological and intelligent designer the question would keep going back till finally a creator or intelligent designer would have to be non biological."

Would you mind clarifying this, please?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:52:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I understand the hypothetical process presented as abiogenesis. I understand it is a long time stepping process.

I'm saying there is no natural process that brings such elements into arrangement that could even begin to evolve into the life we see.

no plausible, possible, likely natural process can make a virus like assembly of matter.

Why couldn't any natural process make a virus-like assembly of matter? A virus is simply a protein arrangement in a geometric pattern. Elements already arrange themselves like that to create larger, more complex manifestations of themselves. Consider, for example, the buckmeister fullerene.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:16:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:03:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
The question is how life on earth emerged. let's stay on topic. Just because the line of questioning might end in God is no reason not to ask the questions.

"I have a question to people that don't even look at an intelligent design as a possibility."

My response was in line with your post.

"Repressively for any biological and intelligent designer the question would keep going back till finally a creator or intelligent designer would have to be non biological."

Would you mind clarifying this, please?

If life on earth was created by intelligent designer, say alien. how did the alien emerge. If the answer to that is ID, then how did that ID emerge, so forth and so on.

Eventually there will be one original creator.

But we can only investigate the conditions present here on EARTH. limiting what we can find out and keeping our inquiry to only stating Life on Earth is ID, and no information right now on the creator or abiogenesis of the Designer/s.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:15:53 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:52:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I understand the hypothetical process presented as abiogenesis. I understand it is a long time stepping process.

I'm saying there is no natural process that brings such elements into arrangement that could even begin to evolve into the life we see.

no plausible, possible, likely natural process can make a virus like assembly of matter.

Why couldn't any natural process make a virus-like assembly of matter? A virus is simply a protein arrangement in a geometric pattern. Elements already arrange themselves like that to create larger, more complex manifestations of themselves. Consider, for example, the buckmeister fullerene.

The buckyball is just like a snowflake. the arrangement is a pattern well understood to be directly from the crystallization of an homogenous substance.

Making rock candy is very different from making a protein chain that stores information.

Can you come up with or find an experimentally verified hypothesis of how chiral rna nucleobases join with the opposite handed sugar-phosphate backbone, in a chain long enough to hold any kind of encoding?

Could you suggest any manner in which lifeless molecules or a chain of proteins even first receive the capability of making completely different molecular structures?

When ever elements created in different environments are arranged together in NON-repeating but MEANINGFUL patterns it's usually taken as a sign of intelligently constructed.