Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

New Evidence on Origin of Life

slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:00:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Amino acids and peptides interact and create proteins and RNA as a co-creation process. The peptides and RNA then are subject to selection forces then the first cell forms.

If you are not familiar peptides are short chains of amino acids and proteins are long chains of amino acids. RNA is composed of protein, carbohydrate and the nucleotide acids we all know about.

I like this research as it really starts to dive down to understand how RNA could form and I think that anyone who has an interest in this was not expecting a lightning flash and a piece of self replicating RNA to suddenly appear.

RNA and proteins have precursors. It makes sense that those precursors would have interacted and it makes sense that since all major components to life have proteins in their form that the arrangement of proteins and peptides were commonly derived.

The exciting thing is that science is just beginning to uncover knowledge of life which starts to allow envisioning how a collection of biochemical reactions lead to the longer term repeatable reactions we call life. Hold on to your hats as the case for abiogenisis will only get stronger.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."


Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."


Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

And of course you're aware, what you claim the article doesn't show really doesn't have much to do with what the article is actually saying.....

The article, as with others, provides evidence for a potential intermediate step between pre-biotic life and modern genetic based life as Ribozymes did for the RNA world. Essentially; that a chemically simpler system than exists now, is capable of performing similar functions to the more advanced chemical systems. Has it removed all the gaps, no, not really; but it never claimed it did.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 8:30:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."


Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

And of course you're aware, what you claim the article doesn't show really doesn't have much to do with what the article is actually saying.....

The article, as with others, provides evidence for a potential intermediate step between pre-biotic life and modern genetic based life as Ribozymes did for the RNA world. Essentially; that a chemically simpler system than exists now, is capable of performing similar functions to the more advanced chemical systems. Has it removed all the gaps, no, not really; but it never claimed it did.

So the title of this thread is "New evidence for the Origin of Life" and the OP was using the article as a way to support an abiogenesis scenario of OOL. Which now you respond saying is not the point of the article.

Where is the evidence in this? That proteins fold in predictable ways? That tRNA have only a select set of codons they react with? Not new news,

So this is just a long article repeating what has been known and the OP is saying it is new evidence for abiogensis. Which it adds nothing to. the only "evidence" (in air quotes) for the unguided emergence of life is pure conjecture and imaginings.

Everyone knows the one eyed purple people eater, planted life on this earth to harvest. And I have just as much evidence for that as anyone has for abiogenesis.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 12:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 8:30:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."


Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

And of course you're aware, what you claim the article doesn't show really doesn't have much to do with what the article is actually saying.....

The article, as with others, provides evidence for a potential intermediate step between pre-biotic life and modern genetic based life as Ribozymes did for the RNA world. Essentially; that a chemically simpler system than exists now, is capable of performing similar functions to the more advanced chemical systems. Has it removed all the gaps, no, not really; but it never claimed it did.

So the title of this thread is "New evidence for the Origin of Life" and the OP was using the article as a way to support an abiogenesis scenario of OOL. Which now you respond saying is not the point of the article.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, I am pointing out that what you are claiming is not particularly relevant to the details of the original article. It is not there to prove abiogenesis, or that a life has been created, or a full scenario for abiogenesis has been discovered; all things that you seem to imply were the case with your previous reply.

Where is the evidence in this? That proteins fold in predictable ways? That tRNA have only a select set of codons they react with? Not new news,

Well, if you put it like that, you're right. But if you put it like that, you're commiting a straw man, because that isn't the point of the article.

The point is, that both papers references showed that these two aspects of proteins can occur in a much simpler way than they do now; it essentially lowers one of the key hurdles regarding the potential role of peptides in early pre-biotic life; an important step.

So this is just a long article repeating what has been known and the OP is saying it is new evidence for abiogensis. Which it adds nothing to. the only "evidence" (in air quotes) for the unguided emergence of life is pure conjecture and imaginings.

The specific details were not actually known previously to this.

Everyone knows the one eyed purple people eater, planted life on this earth to harvest. And I have just as much evidence for that as anyone has for abiogenesis.

This is not actually true, and I'm fairly sure you know it.

Looking at life, as it is now, you can point to many major hurdles for it to have arisen naturally, and a great many of these have either been shown not be particularly significant hurdles, have been demonstrated to be easily passable by experiment, or the hurdles are not as significant as we once thought; three scenarios that have no reason to be true if Abiogenesis was not the reason life exists. Moreover, the structure of existing life, also can be used to point to simpler origins, such as rybozyzmes and what appears to be vestigial remnants of RNA in existing organic systems where there is no need.

While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 12:32:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 12:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:30:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."

Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

And of course you're aware, what you claim the article doesn't show really doesn't have much to do with what the article is actually saying.....

The article, as with others, provides evidence for a potential intermediate step between pre-biotic life and modern genetic based life as Ribozymes did for the RNA world. Essentially; that a chemically simpler system than exists now, is capable of performing similar functions to the more advanced chemical systems. Has it removed all the gaps, no, not really; but it never claimed it did.

So the title of this thread is "New evidence for the Origin of Life" and the OP was using the article as a way to support an abiogenesis scenario of OOL. Which now you respond saying is not the point of the article.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, I am pointing out that what you are claiming is not particularly relevant to the details of the original article. It is not there to prove abiogenesis, or that a life has been created, or a full scenario for abiogenesis has been discovered; all things that you seem to imply were the case with your previous reply.

Where is the evidence in this? That proteins fold in predictable ways? That tRNA have only a select set of codons they react with? Not new news,

Well, if you put it like that, you're right. But if you put it like that, you're commiting a straw man, because that isn't the point of the article.

The point is, that both papers references showed that these two aspects of proteins can occur in a much simpler way than they do now; it essentially lowers one of the key hurdles regarding the potential role of peptides in early pre-biotic life; an important step.



So this is just a long article repeating what has been known and the OP is saying it is new evidence for abiogensis. Which it adds nothing to. the only "evidence" (in air quotes) for the unguided emergence of life is pure conjecture and imaginings.

The specific details were not actually known previously to this.

Everyone knows the one eyed purple people eater, planted life on this earth to harvest. And I have just as much evidence for that as anyone has for abiogenesis.

This is not actually true, and I'm fairly sure you know it.

Looking at life, as it is now, you can point to many major hurdles for it to have arisen naturally, and a great many of these have either been shown not be particularly significant hurdles, have been demonstrated to be easily passable by experiment, or the hurdles are not as significant as we once thought; three scenarios that have no reason to be true if Abiogenesis was not the reason life exists. Moreover, the structure of existing life, also can be used to point to simpler origins, such as rybozyzmes and what appears to be vestigial remnants of RNA in existing organic systems where there is no need.

"no need" implies a comparison to an ideal. Life unearth today shows one thing, degradation. Entropy and other factors demonstrated by experiment show that individual organisms degrade in terms of efficient functioning, and that populations or groups of organisms degrade in genetic information. One key component of multi-gene mutations that lead to adaptive benefits is that they come from a collection of genes that lost their original structure. ie.. a set of genes break, losing genetic information, stay benign until the combination of them react to make produce a new feature. (that's simplified but basically true)

So the presence of vestigial or non functioning material, or material that has a purpose we can not imagine yet, are to be expected in living systems observable today.


While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.

There is evidence for design. Competing theories have to account for all the evidence. Abiogensis is forwarded because of a world view not on facts. And that is why scientist write papers about imaginary scenarios and incredibly small chance events to explain and overcome the hurdles you speak of.

I've posted analogies before like a viking sword being formed naturally. The story telling that abiogensis advocates use can be applied to the natural emergence of a hammer, sword, truck.

Looking at today's internal combustion engines seems like a lot of hurdles to explain that emerging naturally. But there is a lot that can be taken away from a modern engine and get to a hypothetical simpler form.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle. The so called "science" is no different than science-fiction.

But we know. as in demonstrated by experiment that more complex organism, or assumed to come later in an history of evolution, have more non-coding regions of DNA. Now non-coding DNA is not necessarily junk. We see the further life departs from a single cell the more degradation and luggage it accumulates. Maybe not in the way of junk but as you noted some vestigial traces. And as I added mutations and loss of genetic information.

If you rewind the clock, this begs the question at the convergence of the first life, why was it so efficient? Why does it have so little imperfections of genetic code? You are suggesting that a bio-mechanical Turing machine can emerge from a real world "dirty" environment.

I find that ludicrous and see that the only real answer is life can about by a manufacturing process. I don't see anything in the article to the contrary.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 12:32:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 12:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:30:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

And of course you're aware, what you claim the article doesn't show really doesn't have much to do with what the article is actually saying.....

The article, as with others, provides evidence for a potential intermediate step between pre-biotic life and modern genetic based life as Ribozymes did for the RNA world. Essentially; that a chemically simpler system than exists now, is capable of performing similar functions to the more advanced chemical systems. Has it removed all the gaps, no, not really; but it never claimed it did.

So the title of this thread is "New evidence for the Origin of Life" and the OP was using the article as a way to support an abiogenesis scenario of OOL. Which now you respond saying is not the point of the article.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, I am pointing out that what you are claiming is not particularly relevant to the details of the original article. It is not there to prove abiogenesis, or that a life has been created, or a full scenario for abiogenesis has been discovered; all things that you seem to imply were the case with your previous reply.

Where is the evidence in this? That proteins fold in predictable ways? That tRNA have only a select set of codons they react with? Not new news,

Well, if you put it like that, you're right. But if you put it like that, you're commiting a straw man, because that isn't the point of the article.

The point is, that both papers references showed that these two aspects of proteins can occur in a much simpler way than they do now; it essentially lowers one of the key hurdles regarding the potential role of peptides in early pre-biotic life; an important step.



So this is just a long article repeating what has been known and the OP is saying it is new evidence for abiogensis. Which it adds nothing to. the only "evidence" (in air quotes) for the unguided emergence of life is pure conjecture and imaginings.

The specific details were not actually known previously to this.

Everyone knows the one eyed purple people eater, planted life on this earth to harvest. And I have just as much evidence for that as anyone has for abiogenesis.

This is not actually true, and I'm fairly sure you know it.

Looking at life, as it is now, you can point to many major hurdles for it to have arisen naturally, and a great many of these have either been shown not be particularly significant hurdles, have been demonstrated to be easily passable by experiment, or the hurdles are not as significant as we once thought; three scenarios that have no reason to be true if Abiogenesis was not the reason life exists. Moreover, the structure of existing life, also can be used to point to simpler origins, such as rybozyzmes and what appears to be vestigial remnants of RNA in existing organic systems where there is no need.

"no need" implies a comparison to an ideal.

Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself; Something which your own claims that life cannot arise naturally, is substantially weaked by; because if your claim was true, there is no expectation that so many elements of life can be described in such a way through natural processes.

Secondly, with regards to "no-need", I'm talking about fairly well understood chemical vestigiality in elements of biology, such as Riboyzmes being primarily comprised of RNA for it's activity, when pretty much all other enzymes are primarily protein based; not aspects of vestigiality in the genetic code;

While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.

There is evidence for design. Competing theories have to account for all the evidence.

There is evidence for design in the same way that there is evidence for flat earth. Biological Evolution, explains every fact of biology. Abiogenesis, given the evolution of life is evidently a naturalistic process occuring over a million years, and design fails both in terms of specific evidence, and occams razor, it fails in this respect to.

Abiogensis is forwarded because of a world view not on facts. And that is why scientist write papers about imaginary scenarios and incredibly small chance events to explain and overcome the hurdles you speak of.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, it is forwarded because there is no other compelling or reasonable evidence of any other scenario. The specific hypotheses forwarded for the potential avenues are indeed based on facts; your suggestion that science simply pulls explanations out of it's rear end, and does not care that it relies on unlikely events, is simply dishonest.

I've posted analogies before like a viking sword being formed naturally.

Swords are not life. Swords do not breed; are not subject to population genetics or selection, and cannot be phylogenically categorised, essential criteria in the explanation of how complexity can from from simiplicity. These are always conveniently ignored in any ID/Creationist analogy.

Moreover, if you were truly willing to compare "Car Engines" and abiogenesis accurately, the current state of research has done the equivalent of:

a) Showing that in some scenarios engine blocks can arise through natural processes.
b) That in the potentially naturally occuring chemical environments, things very similar to gearboxes can self-assemble.
c.) That natural selection favors gearboxes attaching to engine blocks.

I could compare more, but it gets silly because Engines are so unlike life that the analogy is ridiculous.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle.

Abiogenesis experimentation has NEVER performed experiments to produce life. You're talking about spontaneous generation, which is not Abiogenesis.

But we know. as in demonstrated by experiment that more complex organism, or assumed to come later in an history of evolution, have more non-coding regions of DNA. We see the further life departs from a single cell the more degradation and luggage it accumulates....

Well, as I was talking about the chemistry, not the DNA, this is rather moot; but is actually flat out contradicted by the facts; if your statements were true; then the amount of DNA "luggage" accumulated would be proportional to number of generations elapsed; meaning relative occurance of such luggage between organisms is proportional to their generation rate; which it is not at all.

If you rewind the clock, this begs the question at the convergence of the first life, why was it so efficient? Why does it have so little imperfections of genetic code?

It was likely neither efficient, nor perfect. Your argument assumes that life started "ideal" and degenerated. That is not what we see in nature, the genome, nor any sort of reasonable conclusion one can draw from the evidence; your incredulity here is simply based on faulty informat
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 12:32:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 12:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:30:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2015 8:15:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself; Something which your own claims that life cannot arise naturally, is substantially weaked by; because if your claim was true, there is no expectation that so many elements of life can be described in such a way through natural processes.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence. And it's should be no surprise that the chemicals react in similar fashion when outside of a living organism as the normally do inside a living organism. I don't think anyone is saying "Life" is this magical supernatural miracle of God.

What these science fiction stories do not bring to the table is evidence. They don't bring to the table an account that explains lifes emergence. And nearly all the time, one science-fiction story that describes the possible emergence of protein, is incompatible and mutually exclusive to the science-fiction story that explains the natural emergence of a DNA codon.

Where did life emerge? First it was a puddle, then a deep ocean, now a thermal vent, bottom of glacier, asteroid, upper atmosphere meteorite hit, ect... And this is just a list of scenarios to explain a small selection of parts of a cell. Now even if all these events did happen, what do you call it when parts from a variety of mutually exclusive environments converge together in an arrangement with low to no impurities that succeed at functioning as a Turing machine? i call that a manufacturing process.


Secondly, with regards to "no-need", I'm talking about fairly well understood chemical vestigiality in elements of biology, such as Riboyzmes being primarily comprised of RNA for it's activity, when pretty much all other enzymes are primarily protein based; not aspects of vestigiality in the genetic code;


I'm talking about all so called "vestigiality" is to be expected in a non-abiogensis history. And my point is think "no-need" is subjective. It's like saying the DNA wants to self replicate and has created a whole human around the single goal of self replication. (malarkey)


While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.

There is evidence for design. Competing theories have to account for all the evidence.

There is evidence for design in the same way that there is evidence for flat earth. Biological Evolution, explains every fact of biology. Abiogenesis, given the evolution of life is evidently a naturalistic process occuring over a million years, and design fails both in terms of specific evidence, and occams razor, it fails in this respect to.

First off it is not against occam's razor when one realizes that you are flat out lying that abiogenesis accounts for all facts of life.

The cell, and the even imagined simplest form of life, is practically impossible to be produced in a natural enviroment. And all experiments understanding biology and producing anything of merit to life, or resembling living function was intelligently created in carefully controlled fashions.

When journalist hyped and hollard about science making the building blocks of DNA in a tube, they left out that the scientist screened the results, carefully monitored and turned off and on a UV laser at the right moments.

There is a big difference from duplicating a natural environment in the lab and watching the result form... and what abiogensis scientist do in which they control the environment to form the result they want and then look for an imaginary scenario in which a natural unguided world could accomplish the same steps. <- do you understand the difference???


Abiogensis is forwarded because of a world view not on facts. And that is why scientist write papers about imaginary scenarios and incredibly small chance events to explain and overcome the hurdles you speak of.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, it is forwarded because there is no other compelling or reasonable evidence of any other scenario. The specific hypotheses forwarded for the potential avenues are indeed based on facts; your suggestion that science simply pulls explanations out of it's rear end, and does not care that it relies on unlikely events, is simply dishonest.

I've posted analogies before like a viking sword being formed naturally.

Swords are not life. Swords do not breed; are not subject to population genetics or selection, and cannot be phylogenically categorised, essential criteria in the explanation of how complexity can from from simiplicity. These are always conveniently ignored in any ID/Creationist analogy.

Which is why my analogies using swords are about the first life to form. This abiogenetic LUCA did not spawn from breeding or genetic drift. WHY is it so hard for you and abiogenesis proponents like you to separate the emergence of life from the evolution of life. Do rocks get together an breed? no then my analogy of natural events making a sword is relevant. get back on topic please.


Moreover, if you were truly willing to compare "Car Engines" and abiogenesis accurately, the current state of research has done the equivalent of:

a) Showing that in some scenarios engine blocks can arise through natural processes.
b) That in the potentially naturally occuring chemical environments, things very similar to gearboxes can self-assemble.
c.) That natural selection favors gearboxes attaching to engine blocks.

I could compare more, but it gets silly because Engines are so unlike life that the analogy is ridiculous.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle.

Abiogenesis experimentation has NEVER performed experiments to produce life. You're talking about spontaneous generation, which is not Abiogenesis.

Even today there are titles like "life created in the lab". Abiogenesis, life from non-living material is a type of spontaneous generation. And scientist in early acceptance of abiogenesis conducted experiments to see if they could reproduce an early earth environment and hoped for simple life like chemical precursors to result. Now they just conjecture about it happening.

As for my statements that life started "ideal" and degenerated since.. you say that is false. I'm interested and open to seeing what evidence you have of it not being so.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 4:02:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And..you think this is new news, why exactly?

I recall reading all this when I was in undergrad Microbiology 301. Some seven or eight years ago.

But what IS more recent. Seems we have moved even closer to creating life in a lab setting, which mocks the Earth's environment in "Darwin's warm little pond" some three billion years ago.

Oh...we have been attempting this for decades, going back the the famous Miller-Urey Experiment. But they never got past making proteins. Or maybe it was only amino acids--the pre-cursors to protein.

But now we have made rNA!

Bang!!!

What was that?

Oh..nuthin'---just another nail in the coffin for Creationists.

LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

Now even if all these events did happen, what do you call it when parts from a variety of mutually exclusive environments converge together in an arrangement with low to no impurities that succeed at functioning as a Turing machine? i call that a manufacturing process.

Even if it happens naturally with no intelligent mediation?

Moreover, as I pointed out, you make a strange assumption that the first "life" had low to no impurities which is not one made by science; secondly, the use of "turing machine" is a bit misleading; chemical replicator is a better description, and that isn't nearly as tricky as your statement implies.

Secondly, with regards to "no-need", I'm talking about fairly well understood chemical vestigiality in elements of biology, such as Riboyzmes being primarily comprised of RNA for it's activity

I'm talking about all so called "vestigiality" is to be expected in a non-abiogensis history. And my point is think "no-need" is subjective.

The vestigiality you are talking about is genetic, I am talking about chemical. Not the same thing. However, vestigiality is only to be expected in an evolutionary process; by your usage of replication and "degredation"; the nature of such vestigiality and the patterns found in nature show these patterns match expectations of large scale evolution from a universal common ancestor. Without such descent with modification over longer periods, such patterns are not explainable.

While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.

There is evidence for design. Competing theories have to account for all the evidence.

There is evidence for design in the same way that there is evidence for flat earth. Biological Evolution, explains every fact of biology. Abiogenesis, given the evolution of life is evidently a naturalistic process occuring over a million years, and design fails both in terms of specific evidence, and occams razor, it fails in this respect to.

First off it is not against occam's razor when one realizes that you are flat out lying that abiogenesis accounts for all facts of life.

You misread my quote. I have bolded what I said, and what you claimed I said.

There is a big difference from duplicating a natural environment in the lab and watching the result form... and what abiogensis scientist do in which they control the environment to form the result they want and then look for an imaginary scenario in which a natural unguided world could accomplish the same steps. <- do you understand the difference???

What you are doing is implying that there is a massive global conspiracy in abiogenesis research where this isn't spotted or surpressed. Abiogenesis research does control the environment; as does every single scientific experiment ever conducted, that is not a big deal despite your implication that it is. Moreover, the research conducted in controlled conditions doesn't simply invent these conditions at random; many are selectively chosen based on the best understanding of chemical conditions at the time, and what chemicals could potentially be available. There is a vast difference, for example, between showing the spontaneous generation and manufacture of lipid bilayers from chemical precursers using naturally occuring chemicals, or chemicals known to be naturally created; and inventing an implausible scenario involving chemicals that could definitely not be available at the time.

Now, given our lack of detailed knowledge of chemical environments, and the necessarily narrow focus of specific experiments; after all, I don't think anyone believes it reasonable that LUCA formed in anything close to a hundred years or any pratically reproducable timeline; breaking down such experiments to show the plausibility of specific steps is pretty reasonable. The suggestion that these scenarios are "imaginary" grossly distorts their focus and purpose; and hugely misrepresents the reasoning and logic that goes into chosing the initial conditions.

Given this, your suggestion that they should recreate the natural environment, despite us not knowing exactly what this was, and watching the result form, despite not knowing how long this could take, seems to be to setting the bar so incredibly high that you know it will never be acheivable. This strikes me as the demand of someone who isn't interested in what the answer is, and merely wants to set an impossible ideal so any positive evidence can be rejected out of hand.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 2:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Swords are not life. Swords do not breed; are not subject to population genetics or selection, and cannot be phylogenically categorised, essential criteria in the explanation of how complexity can from from simiplicity. These are always conveniently ignored in any ID/Creationist analogy.

Which is why my analogies using swords are about the first life to form. This abiogenetic LUCA did not spawn from breeding or genetic drift.
Okay, I apologise for misunderstanding that. I haven't seen your sword analogy, so I made an assumption.

Saying that, though, there is an element of my point that is still valid when comparing "life", and it's origin to things that are manufactured. I will attempt to clarify this:

Given our understanding so far, the origin of life, and how we are here today is very much concerned with a progression from simplicity to complexity. Modern life from LUCA, and many elements that were likely already in place at the time LUCA evolved are fairly well explained by evolutionary processes; as many "selective pressures" in candidates for pre-biotic structures can be indicated by the evidence.

What that means, though, is that there are a collection of other aspects of life whose occurance cannot be explained, even though their continued existance after this initial occurance could potentially be explained by that selective pressure. This can be as simple as "can the chemical pre-cursors form in the first place"; and much research has been concerned with this, and has shown in many cases that it can. These aspects of complexity of life and associated properties is what is being explored by abiogenesis research: can such complexity arise from simpler pre-cursors in with a reasonable probability. Thus far, many experiments and uncovered aspects of low level biology can be shown to be far simpler leaps than people like you suggest. To say that all of them are, would be false, as there is still many unknowns. However, as I have been saying throughout this progression from simplicity to complexity; the very thing you require to be highly unlikely based on your arguments, is slowly being broken down into bitesized chunks that are plausible in the context of what we know about conditions and the properties of life.

Comparrisons to manufactured things invariably ignore this key avenue of research, and what has been revealed so far, because the properties of life, and what is known about such processes are ignored in the comparrison to solely focus on the properties of the sword; which doesn't have them.

For example, if there was evidence to show that lengths of metal can form in potentially nautral conditions, and can be induced to fold in potentially natural conditions, naturally attracts smaller peices of metal; with a sword shape being naturally being favored in many natural environments; it becomes much less of a stretch to beleive that they can be created naturally. However, as swords are manufactured, there is no such evidence; yet there is such equivalent evidence for life; a fundamental reason why this analogy fails.

Moreover, if you were truly willing to compare "Car Engines" and abiogenesis accurately, the current state of research has done the equivalent of:

a) Showing that in some scenarios engine blocks can arise through natural processes.
b) That in the potentially naturally occuring chemical environments, things very similar to gearboxes can self-assemble.
c.) That natural selection favors gearboxes attaching to engine blocks.

I could compare more, but it gets silly because Engines are so unlike life that the analogy is ridiculous.

You completely missed the failure of your key comparison I described here.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle.

Abiogenesis experimentation has NEVER performed experiments to produce life. You're talking about spontaneous generation, which is not Abiogenesis.
Even today there are titles like "life created in the lab".
I googled the term; the only examples I could find is where life was actually created in the lab; albeit not abiogenesis research. I'm not entirely sure what you're point is with this statement.

Abiogenesis, life from non-living material is a type of spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very specific scientific theory, with very specific meaning and a very specific meaning, which does not match what Abiogenesis is unless you are equivocating your terms. Be aware, that the conflating of the two is often used as a strawman by Creationists to try and spin abiogenesis as something that has already been disproven, or that people have tried to show, but failed; but I will give you the benefit of the doube that you are not doing that..

And scientist in early acceptance of abiogenesis conducted experiments to see if they could reproduce an early earth environment and hoped for simple life like chemical precursors to result. Now they just conjecture about it happening.
Sorry, I have no idea what your point is here; I don't want to rehash what I said above with respect to the nature of the research where you have made what appeared to have been similar claims.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 2:36:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As for my statements that life started "ideal" and degenerated since.. you say that is false. I'm interested and open to seeing what evidence you have of it not being so.

I thought I included evidence of why that is not true; but I can't be bothered to go back and check my previous post so I will clarify.

So, I'm taking what you mean by "Ideal" and "Degredation", which is important, as a genetic replicator with properties that work very well (ideal), which over time is affected by various factors that cause it to become less good either by genes breaking, or with the compilation of junk, garbage or features that are not ideal (degredation). If these definitions are appropriate for what you meant, this absolutely flies in the face of everything we know about evolution and biology.

1.) Degredation that we know of, can only be caused by mutations; which are random. From what we can see most mutations are harmless, so cannot be considered degredation. In some cases, the mutations are harmful; but as they are harmful are unlikely to be compiled into a subsequent generation by their very nature as it affects the creatures ability to survive. This generally makes the degredation you posit, self removing and therefore unlikely to compile over multiple generations.

2.) We know "Junk" DNA, whatever that is (we know that much DNA has no effective function as it can be removed without harming the creature), can be removed from the genome of organisms, the disparity of such junk DNA across different species implies that it can be both added and removed.

3.) If degredation is compiled, then such degredations should be measurable across species; assuming a fairly constant rate of degredation potentially affected by other factors such as mutation rates, the genomes of all organisms should contain evidence of such linear degredation; as broadly speaking the amount of degredation for a given species should broadly match it's replication time, IE: How many times the DNA has been copied; the process that introduces such degredation. No such pattern exists in the genomes of organisms.

4.) All these firmly refute the concept of compiled addative degredation of organisms over time which you are implying is true.

Moreover:

1.) Many chemical processes mediated by genetics, including replication, enyzme effectiveness, and effectiveness of chemical content are chemically simpler in nature when less effective but still being functional.

2.) As this genetic effectiveness can be affected by selective pressures, having a less effective property can simply and easily be made more effective by the trial and error processes of natural selection and replication over time.

3.) Simple or limited chemistry and genes, is generally easier to explain through either probability or naural processes than are complex chemistry and highly interactive genes.

4.) As a result, if you are considering abiogenesis or pre-biotic life, it is more plausible that the originating life was much more simple, and grew to be more complex and more ideal over time through standard processes of evolution.

What this means, is that the simplest and most evidently supported presumption of what the earliest forms of self-replicating organism (which is not an ancestor of LUCA), looked like, likely started with more basic processes and chemsitry which were not ideal, but became more efficient and better tailored to the chemical environment over time through Natural Selection.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


Now even if all these events did happen, what do you call it when parts from a variety of mutually exclusive environments converge together in an arrangement with low to no impurities that succeed at functioning as a Turing machine? i call that a manufacturing process.

Even if it happens naturally with no intelligent mediation?

The filtering, convergence of pieces from mutually exclusive environments. Is evidence of manufacturing. Manufacturing has an intelligent agency behind it. One step in that manufacturing process maybe to seed clouds with organic material asteroids.


Moreover, as I pointed out, you make a strange assumption that the first "life" had low to no impurities which is not one made by science; secondly, the use of "turing machine" is a bit misleading; chemical replicator is a better description, and that isn't nearly as tricky as your statement implies.

Turing machine is completely applicable. chemical replicator is an attempt to avoid facing the fact that information is encoded in RNA and DNA.


Secondly, with regards to "no-need", I'm talking about fairly well understood chemical vestigiality in elements of biology, such as Riboyzmes being primarily comprised of RNA for it's activity

I'm talking about all so called "vestigiality" is to be expected in a non-abiogensis history. And my point is think "no-need" is subjective.

The vestigiality you are talking about is genetic, I am talking about chemical. Not the same thing. However, vestigiality is only to be expected in an evolutionary process; by your usage of replication and "degredation"; the nature of such vestigiality and the patterns found in nature show these patterns match expectations of large scale evolution from a universal common ancestor. Without such descent with modification over longer periods, such patterns are not explainable.


Degradation doesn't make abiogensis any more or less likely than ID. Degradation takes place when life is formed. Entropy, exposure, friction, perturbations all begin to degrade a chemical structure.

While this is by no means proof, it all consistutes evidence that lends credence to the concept of Abiogenesis. Intelligent design, and Creationism, however, are still rooted in the same "evidence" that has been around for the last few thousand years. Namely: None.

There is evidence for design. Competing theories have to account for all the evidence.

There is evidence for design in the same way that there is evidence for flat earth. Biological Evolution, explains every fact of biology. Abiogenesis, given the evolution of life is evidently a naturalistic process occuring over a million years, and design fails both in terms of specific evidence, and occams razor, it fails in this respect to.

First off it is not against occam's razor when one realizes that you are flat out lying that abiogenesis accounts for all facts of life.

You misread my quote. I have bolded what I said, and what you claimed I said.

I;m not saying there is no biological evolution. I'm saying there is no abiogensis. Can you keep them separate?


There is a big difference from duplicating a natural environment in the lab and watching the result form... and what abiogensis scientist do in which they control the environment to form the result they want and then look for an imaginary scenario in which a natural unguided world could accomplish the same steps. <- do you understand the difference???

What you are doing is implying that there is a massive global conspiracy in abiogenesis research where this isn't spotted or surpressed. Abiogenesis research does control the environment; as does every single scientific experiment ever conducted, that is not a big deal despite your implication that it is. Moreover, the research conducted in controlled conditions doesn't simply invent these conditions at random; many are selectively chosen based on the best understanding of chemical conditions at the time, and what chemicals could potentially be available. There is a vast difference, for example, between showing the spontaneous generation and manufacture of lipid bilayers from chemical precursers using naturally occuring chemicals, or chemicals known to be naturally created; and inventing an implausible scenario involving chemicals that could definitely not be available at the time.


No I'm suggesting the logical conclusion is being ignored because the scientific community is indoctrinated to conduct experiments in a world without intelligent beings other than humans.

Now, given our lack of detailed knowledge of chemical environments, and the necessarily narrow focus of specific experiments; after all, I don't think anyone believes it reasonable that LUCA formed in anything close to a hundred years or any pratically reproducable timeline; breaking down such experiments to show the plausibility of specific steps is pretty reasonable. The suggestion that these scenarios are "imaginary" grossly distorts their focus and purpose; and hugely misrepresents the reasoning and logic that goes into chosing the initial conditions.

Given this, your suggestion that they should recreate the natural environment, despite us not knowing exactly what this was, and watching the result form, despite not knowing how long this could take, seems to be to setting the bar so incredibly high that you know it will never be achievable. This strikes me as the demand of someone who isn't interested in what the answer is, and merely wants to set an impossible ideal so any positive evidence can be rejected out of hand.

Abiogensis scientist conduct experiments to make parts of a living cell. Then they imagine how these conditions will happen in a real world environment.

That is science fiction.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:32:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.

Because that doesn't mean their probability of combining is zero.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:49:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:32:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.

Because that doesn't mean their probability of combining is zero.

because there could still be an environment they both could mutually exist in.

I said plausible. You said probable. they are different terms. I have this kind of take on the principle of parsimony that if a lot of of rare events happen in rare sequence, there is probably another reason than chance.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 3:53:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 2:32:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Swords are not life. Swords do not breed; are not subject to population genetics or selection, and cannot be phylogenically categorised, essential criteria in the explanation of how complexity can from from simiplicity. These are always conveniently ignored in any ID/Creationist analogy.

Which is why my analogies using swords are about the first life to form. This abiogenetic LUCA did not spawn from breeding or genetic drift.
Okay, I apologise for misunderstanding that. I haven't seen your sword analogy, so I made an assumption.

Saying that, though, there is an element of my point that is still valid when comparing "life", and it's origin to things that are manufactured. I will attempt to clarify this:

Given our understanding so far, the origin of life, and how we are here today is very much concerned with a progression from simplicity to complexity. Modern life from LUCA, and many elements that were likely already in place at the time LUCA evolved are fairly well explained by evolutionary processes; as many "selective pressures" in candidates for pre-biotic structures can be indicated by the evidence.

What that means, though, is that there are a collection of other aspects of life whose occurance cannot be explained, even though their continued existance after this initial occurance could potentially be explained by that selective pressure. This can be as simple as "can the chemical pre-cursors form in the first place"; and much research has been concerned with this, and has shown in many cases that it can. These aspects of complexity of life and associated properties is what is being explored by abiogenesis research: can such complexity arise from simpler pre-cursors in with a reasonable probability. Thus far, many experiments and uncovered aspects of low level biology can be shown to be far simpler leaps than people like you suggest. To say that all of them are, would be false, as there is still many unknowns. However, as I have been saying throughout this progression from simplicity to complexity; the very thing you require to be highly unlikely based on your arguments, is slowly being broken down into bitesized chunks that are plausible in the context of what we know about conditions and the properties of life.

Comparrisons to manufactured things invariably ignore this key avenue of research, and what has been revealed so far, because the properties of life, and what is known about such processes are ignored in the comparrison to solely focus on the properties of the sword; which doesn't have them.

For example, if there was evidence to show that lengths of metal can form in potentially nautral conditions, and can be induced to fold in potentially natural conditions, naturally attracts smaller peices of metal; with a sword shape being naturally being favored in many natural environments; it becomes much less of a stretch to beleive that they can be created naturally. However, as swords are manufactured, there is no such evidence; yet there is such equivalent evidence for life; a fundamental reason why this analogy fails.


It wouldn't be an analogy of abiogenesis if the subject was the emergence of life from non-living. It's too show that abiogenesis narratives are great examples of the power of imagination.

Moreover, if you were truly willing to compare "Car Engines" and abiogenesis accurately, the current state of research has done the equivalent of:

a) Showing that in some scenarios engine blocks can arise through natural processes.
b) That in the potentially naturally occuring chemical environments, things very similar to gearboxes can self-assemble.
c.) That natural selection favors gearboxes attaching to engine blocks.

I could compare more, but it gets silly because Engines are so unlike life that the analogy is ridiculous.

You completely missed the failure of your key comparison I described here.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle.

Abiogenesis experimentation has NEVER performed experiments to produce life. You're talking about spontaneous generation, which is not Abiogenesis.
Even today there are titles like "life created in the lab".
I googled the term; the only examples I could find is where life was actually created in the lab; albeit not abiogenesis research. I'm not entirely sure what you're point is
with this statement.

I said like. There are plenty saying "spark of life" and what not. The journalism want to instill in people that making of life from non-living material is a rather straightforward and likely occurrence. just get some water, meteorites, sun together and life is likely to form. Which is why people are so desperate to validate this with finding evidence of life on Mars.


Abiogenesis, life from non-living material is a type of spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very specific scientific theory, with very specific meaning and a very specific meaning, which does not match what Abiogenesis is unless you are equivocating your terms. Be aware, that the conflating of the two is often used as a strawman by Creationists to try and spin abiogenesis as something that has already been disproven, or that people have tried to show, but failed; but I will give you the benefit of the doube that you are not doing that..


Well to me spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms can emerge from non-living material. but I'm not arguing abiogenesis is dis-proven. Just that it belongs to that category.

And scientist in early acceptance of abiogenesis conducted experiments to see if they could reproduce an early earth environment and hoped for simple life like chemical precursors to result. Now they just conjecture about it happening.
Sorry, I have no idea what your point is here; I don't want to rehash what I said above with respect to the nature of the research where you have made what appeared to have been similar claims.

If I came up with a theory that a part of living organism, the cell wall. Easily and commonly forms from mud running down a salt channels. What should be the next step. Aside from testing to show this happens... One also needs to find evidence that Earth had such salt channels.

The things is as I have claimed life is from a manufacturing process. then you won't find some supernatural magical arrangement in life. And the simple processes for making parts and pieces of life are going to adhere to physics and chemistry.

Just like making an airplane doesn't violate any natural laws. But when does the collection become enough to deem something intelligently made.

To me, abiogenesis is like arguing an arrow head emerged naturally from rolling downhill.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 4:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:49:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:32:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.

Because that doesn't mean their probability of combining is zero.

because there could still be an environment they both could mutually exist in.

I said plausible. You said probable. they are different terms. I have this kind of take on the principle of parsimony that if a lot of of rare events happen in rare sequence, there is probably another reason than chance.

An even with low probability isn't necessarily rare. And I don't know why "chance" is being considered as an explanation. If there was a sequence of events that led to the emergence of life, that wouldn't be chance. There would still be a causal chain, but probability is used as a way of expressing how much else could have happened, hypothetically.

Calling the natural explanation chance would be like calling ID chance because the designer could have made a different universe, or a different kind of life.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 4:41:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 4:24:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:49:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:32:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.

Because that doesn't mean their probability of combining is zero.

because there could still be an environment they both could mutually exist in.

I said plausible. You said probable. they are different terms. I have this kind of take on the principle of parsimony that if a lot of of rare events happen in rare sequence, there is probably another reason than chance.

An even with low probability isn't necessarily rare. And I don't know why "chance" is being considered as an explanation. If there was a sequence of events that led to the emergence of life, that wouldn't be chance. There would still be a causal chain, but probability is used as a way of expressing how much else could have happened, hypothetically.

Calling the natural explanation chance would be like calling ID chance because the designer could have made a different universe, or a different kind of life.

I'm using chance as synonymous with probability.

If the chance of X happening is .01% and the chance of Y happening is .01% and the chance of Z happening is .01%. even if they are in a casual chain.. the outcome becomes rare as well.

If many of the other possibilities are equally present then the eventual outcome of the XYZ event would be plausible, or likely.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 10:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.
Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.
If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.
Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.

I am sorry; but I am calling shenanigans on "Mutually exclusive environments". There are indeed many thoughts about various possibilities of the origin of life; but most of the motivations behind environment selection are down to the chemical composition of the area, and the amount of energy available. Almost all mandate a specific temperature range, lack of ionizing radiation, presence of water as a solvent, the existance of organic molecules (or a chemical composition and energy that can lead to their production)

The reasons for calling Shenanigans, is that I am not aware of any "mutually exclusive" environments of which you speak: it is not the case, for example, that RNA only self assembes in high temperature and pressures, but vesicle formation only occuring at low temperatures and pressures. The environmental conditions in most cases are similar. In fact, there are no examples I have used or cited, that are seperate steps that require significantly different conditions. In fact, this is the reason the most accepted idea for the origins of life surrounds hydrothermal vent systems because they likely have the type of rich chemistry and energy conditions required for the types of chemical reactions that are required. This is not to say that some useful reactions can't occur in conditions such as a puddle (which close to the sun is unlikely because of high ultra-violet radiation), but in almost all cases it is the chemistry and energy of the environment that is important and it is not the case that it such reactions necessarily cannot possibly occur in other scenarios.

Feel free to provide specific examples of what you are claiming and how it demonstrates they are "mutually exclusive environments"

Moreover, as I pointed out, you make a strange assumption that the first "life" had low to no impurities which is not one made by science; secondly, the use of "turing machine" is a bit misleading; chemical replicator is a better description, and that isn't nearly as tricky as your statement implies.
Turing machine is completely applicable. chemical replicator is an attempt to avoid facing the fact that information is encoded in RNA and DNA.

Oh, I appreciate that in many respects life is a turing machine; more specifically a "Cell" can be thought of a turing machine, with DNA being one part of it; however using that term is misleading; what a turing machine is, is actually rather simple and using the term has baggage with modern computation that makes it sound more complex and "designed" than you can actually show.

Moreover, As I have argued continually and many times with many people; abstract information is a big deal; not information itself. DNA does not have abstract information in any legitimate sense: I don't think the existance of sequence of chemicals, that with a set of basic chemical processes produces another set of chemicals because of their inherent chemical properties is something that needs to be avoided.

The vestigiality you are talking about is genetic, I am talking about chemical. Not the same thing. However, vestigiality is only to be expected in an evolutionary process; by your usage of replication and "degredation"; the nature of such vestigiality and the patterns found in nature show these patterns match expectations of large scale evolution from a universal common ancestor. Without such descent with modification over longer periods, such patterns are not explainable.

Degradation doesn't make abiogensis any more or less likely than ID. Degradation takes place when life is formed. Entropy, exposure, friction, perturbations all begin to degrade a chemical structure.
As I have stated twice now, I'm referring to chemical vestigiality, I have given examples of what this entails. This is evidence that supports abiogenesis as such examples don't fit with your construction line paradigm and do fit with concepts such as the RNA world; nor can they be pressumed to be from genetic vestigiality due to the nature of what this chemistry is. You have not answered or addressed this.

There is evidence for design in the same way that there is evidence for flat earth. Biological Evolution, explains every fact of biology. Abiogenesis, given the evolution of life is evidently a naturalistic process occuring over a million years, and design fails both in terms of specific evidence, and occams razor, it fails in this respect to.

First off it is not against occam's razor when one realizes that you are flat out lying that abiogenesis accounts for all facts of life.

You misread my quote. I have bolded what I said, and what you claimed I said.

I;m not saying there is no biological evolution. I'm saying there is no abiogensis. Can you keep them separate?
What you are saying is right there in the quote. The text of yours I am quoting implies that I am claimed "Abiogenesis accounts for all the facts", when I made no such claim. As such, it is pretty clear you misread the text you were quoting. Your reply here seems to be completely unrelated to this point.

There is a big difference from duplicating a natural environment in the lab and watching the result form... and what abiogensis scientist do in which they control the environment to form the result they want and then look for an imaginary scenario in which a natural unguided world could accomplish the same steps.

What you are doing is implying that there is a massive global conspiracy in abiogenesis research where this isn't spotted or surpressed.


No I'm suggesting the logical conclusion is being ignored because the scientific community is indoctrinated to conduct experiments in a world without intelligent beings other than humans.

Again, what you actually say, is right here in the text. You are claiming that abiogenesis is fundamentally impossible, and this is implied by the very research being conducted. The implication is the scientists know this and all work together to surpress it, which they have to due to the nature of peer review (global conspiracy), or none of them have realised (global stupidity). As the latter is implausible, the only remaining option is some global conspiracy. so yes; this is what you are implying.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 11:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Comparrisons to manufactured things invariably ignore this key avenue of research, and what has been revealed so far, because the properties of life, and what is known about such processes are ignored in the comparrison to solely focus on the properties of the sword; which doesn't have them.

For example, if there was evidence to show that lengths of metal can form in potentially nautral conditions, and can be induced to fold in potentially natural conditions, naturally attracts smaller peices of metal; with a sword shape being naturally being favored in many natural environments; it becomes much less of a stretch to beleive that they can be created naturally. However, as swords are manufactured, there is no such evidence; yet there is such equivalent evidence for life; a fundamental reason why this analogy fails.


It wouldn't be an analogy of abiogenesis if the subject was the emergence of life from non-living. It's to show that abiogenesis narratives are great examples of the power of imagination.

I cannot see how any of this addresses the point I am making.

Using an analogy to show the implausibility of abiogenesis invariably leaves out and discards the very aspects of what we know about life, and abiogenesis that make it plausible; rendering the analogy invalid. When this physical evidence and known facts are included in such comparrisons, in my example by applying such elements to things such as a sword, such analogies never succeed in highlighing the "imagination" or implausibility of the process.

It is like trying to make an analogy to show the absurdity of planes being able to fly by comparing their properties to that of a car, ignoring it's wings, aerodynamics and engine power.

Moreover, if you were truly willing to compare "Car Engines" and abiogenesis accurately, the current state of research has done the equivalent of:

a) Showing that in some scenarios engine blocks can arise through natural processes.
b) That in the potentially naturally occuring chemical environments, things very similar to gearboxes can self-assemble.
c.) That natural selection favors gearboxes attaching to engine blocks.

I could compare more, but it gets silly because Engines are so unlike life that the analogy is ridiculous.

You completely missed the failure of your key comparison I described here.

And again for a second time.

Long ago advocates of abiogenesis have stopped performing experiments to try and produce life in a test tube, or to in a real world puddle.

Abiogenesis experimentation has NEVER performed experiments to produce life. You're talking about spontaneous generation, which is not Abiogenesis.
Even today there are titles like "life created in the lab".
I googled the term; the only examples I could find is where life was actually created in the lab; albeit not abiogenesis research. I'm not entirely sure what you're point is
with this statement.

I said like. There are plenty saying "spark of life" and what not. The journalism want to instill in people that making of life from non-living material is a rather straightforward and likely occurrence. just get some water, meteorites, sun together and life is likely to form. Which is why people are so desperate to validate this with finding evidence of life on Mars.

Aside from the fact you seem to be confusing scientists with journalists: My point was I have no idea why you sort of brought that statement up at all.

It seems completely unrelated to my statement to which it was a reply; which is abiogenesis experimentation, as far as I am aware, has never performed experiments with the intent to produce life; that was mostly spontaneous generation. How is what journalists say about experiments relevant in the slightest to whether or not scientists have tried to perform experiments to directly produce life?

Abiogenesis, life from non-living material is a type of spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very specific scientific theory, with very specific meaning and a very specific meaning
Well to me spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms can emerge from non-living material. but I'm not arguing abiogenesis is dis-proven. Just that it belongs to that category.

As I stated, this is NOT spontaneous generation as it is defined anywhere I am aware of regardless of how you want to use the term. I am suggesting that you ammend what you consider it to be to match what everyone else defines it as. Agreed definitions are important in such discussions.

And scientist in early acceptance of abiogenesis conducted experiments to see if they could reproduce an early earth environment and hoped for simple life like chemical precursors to result. Now they just conjecture about it happening.

If I came up with a theory that a part of living organism, the cell wall. Easily and commonly forms from mud running down a salt channels. What should be the next step. Aside from testing to show this happens... One also needs to find evidence that Earth had such salt channels.

You seemed to be implying that this form of scientific avenue is somehow unreasonable or bad? How is postulating plausible environmental conditions on earth, that you suspect could assist with some aspect of life "science fiction"? It seems there would be no point experimenting at conditions unlikely ever to have been found on the early earth. And it isn't like whacky scenarios have been postulated and then shoehorned onto the early earth.

Given that we have limited ability to definitively show exactly what the earths micro-environments were 4 billion years ago due to continental recycling; direct evidence is unlikely. And I will be quite happy to state that abiogenesis is more about the plausibility of scenarios than definitively proving how something occured. In most cases, postulated environments for abiogenesis are plausible given the information we do know and can deduce from the evidence we have. Either way, whether we eventually have definitive evidence that something happened a given way, or we can simply show that life can occur in scenarios that can be plausibly expected to have ocurred on the earth; both examples would critically destroy the central premise: that life cannot occur naturally, as both show that given reasonable terrestrial like environments and chemistry; life CAN occur naturally.

The things is as I have claimed life is from a manufacturing process. then you won't find some supernatural magical arrangement in life. And the simple processes for making parts and pieces of life are going to adhere to physics and chemistry.

As I stated before, most models for abiogenesis work in a very similar way. Gradually increasing complexity via the natural assembly of simple elements within reasonable limits of probability. I don't see what the big deal with that is.

Just like making an airplane doesn't violate any natural laws. But when does the collection become enough to deem something intelligently made.

You tell me; give me logical criteria on which to judge it. Thus far complexity cannot occur naturally is the only argument that has been put forward; it seems to me that the experiments and evidence keeps continually showing plausible ways in which what you say cannot occur naturally, can.

To me, abiogenesis is like arguing an arrow head emerged naturally from rolling downhill.

Personal incredulity is not an argument that needs refuting.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:42:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 7:39:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2015 7:36:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

exerpts

1.
Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding -- when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

2.
A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties -- the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids -- were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.


3.
Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages -- the first of which was relatively simple -- may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."


Most of this looks like an explanation of how things work today. I saw very little evidence suggesting a plausible unguided emergence of these interactions. I also saw conjecture was being used to make the connection. Just simple saying it is likely there was an earlier code in a peptide-ran world doesn't make it so. The predictable folding of proteins is what makes them so useful in connection with a genetic encoding of information.

I'm not certain what evidence you would need to have a evidence of plausible interactions of various molecular structures. It is clear in the article that his experiment demonstrated that amino acids along with tRNA would function to create proteins in the high heat environment 4 billion years ago. While there are more chemical reactions which are required to create life that is a significant finding.

I'm also not certain why you find this information describing how life operates today. It was also significantly clear that the findings bring forth the plausibility that tRNA or snipits of tRNA called Urzymes interacted with amino acids by size rather than polarity to code proteins, which means protein folding was later developed, significantly reducing complexity. I can assure you that your body and my body do not function in that manor as shape and polarity of amino acids significantly matter.

I saw nothing of meat, no evidence, suggesting a plausible abiogenesis explanation for why nucleic acids would arrange themselves congruent with a small set of peptides out of all possible peptides.

The scientist did not set out to convince you or anyone else of abiogenisis, but he did discover some interesting things which challenge the RNA World by suggesting a Peptide-RNA world which reduces the level of complexity at which self replicating processes are enabled. The major models were trying to find a pathway to life processes as we know it today and this guy just put a stepping stone in between. Lots more to be discovered, but It will be interesting over the years whether this model catches on.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:10:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as chirality there is much evidence giving pathways of how right and left handedness arose. It can even be altered by UV light. Fundamentally, chirality is not going to be the show stopper of abiogensis.

Here is an possible RNA precursor that creates both left handed and right handed RNA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:13:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 4:41:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 4:24:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:49:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:32:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:22:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/7/2015 3:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:28:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/6/2015 3:28:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2015 2:48:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Firstly, you ignore a MASSIVE part of this post; the fact that the origins of life, and individual aspects of it's potential origins have been broken down into innumerable passable steps; together with continued research into mechanisms by which the remaining hurdles can be overcome is evidence in and of itself.

I'll say life more likely, plausibly, emerged from a manufacturing process. Life exists in this world with natural laws. Many of the premises you say "weaken" my position are imagined science fiction stories not evidence.

Your position that life was intelligently designed, is weakened by the evidence of processes that can bring about more complex, and life-like systems from non-lifelike precursors. This is experimental evidence, no matter what language you chose to use, nor what rhetoric you use to dismiss it.

The only justification used to imply plausibility is that life is too complex to have arisen naturally; abiogenesis experimentation, breaks down that complexity into far, far less complex individual steps and this is why your position is weakened as with every advance, the necessariy complexity or difficulty you use to justify that position is reduced.

If these experiments show Y+X are necessary parts of a simple life form. And the experiments show that Y can emerge naturally in the crevice of a underwater thermal vent. And X can emerge naturally in a puddle filling and evaporating on a clay bank.

Do we look at these experiments as making LIFE more plausible to emerge naturally? Only when you have blinders on and narrowly inspect parts of the narrative instead the whole.


P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=1] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=1]*P(X,Y) >= P(Y|nature) [I(Y|nature)=0] * P(X|nature) [I(X|nature)=0]P(X,Y)

So Yes, it does make life arising naturally more probable, unless it can be shown that he probability of X and Y coming together is zero.

So then I should have added. Y would be destroyed if moved to the puddle environment. and X destroyed if moved to the thermal vent. Doesn't matter, abiogenesis says yeah X+Y makes life naturally more plausible.

Because that doesn't mean their probability of combining is zero.

because there could still be an environment they both could mutually exist in.

I said plausible. You said probable. they are different terms. I have this kind of take on the principle of parsimony that if a lot of of rare events happen in rare sequence, there is probably another reason than chance.

An even with low probability isn't necessarily rare. And I don't know why "chance" is being considered as an explanation. If there was a sequence of events that led to the emergence of life, that wouldn't be chance. There would still be a causal chain, but probability is used as a way of expressing how much else could have happened, hypothetically.

Calling the natural explanation chance would be like calling ID chance because the designer could have made a different universe, or a different kind of life.

I'm using chance as synonymous with probability.

That doesn't have any impact on what I said above.

If the chance of X happening is .01% and the chance of Y happening is .01% and the chance of Z happening is .01%. even if they are in a casual chain.. the outcome becomes rare as well.

You have to take into account the conditional probabilities. The probability of Y might be .001 independent of all other events, but the probability of Y given that X has occurred could be .95. You also need to take into account how many events are taking place in which X, Y, and Z are possible outcomes. Obviously if there's only a 0.001 probability that a human will be over 6 feet 5 inches in height, a lot of people are over that height. It's rare relative to the human population, but not by sheer number.

If many of the other possibilities are equally present then the eventual outcome of the XYZ event would be plausible, or likely.

I'm not sure if you stated this the way you meant to. I'm not sure what you mean here, but if taken literally, I don't think that's correct.