Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis On Earth

MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:40:02 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
So, many know me as a science guy here on the site, and I truly love engaging in scientific discussion.
But it would appear that many who understand basic scientific concepts tend to run into a wall when talking about the origins of life on earth.

Well, I'm here to clear any of that up.

So, please, anyone...bring any question or topic with regards to the origin of life on earth or the specific explanation of abiogenesis to this forum.

Check my debate on the matter first to see if I've answered your question or have addressed the topic you wish to discuss here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ask away!
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:50:20 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/6/2016 4:40:02 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
So, many know me as a science guy here on the site, and I truly love engaging in scientific discussion.
But it would appear that many who understand basic scientific concepts tend to run into a wall when talking about the origins of life on earth.

Well, I'm here to clear any of that up.

So, please, anyone...bring any question or topic with regards to the origin of life on earth or the specific explanation of abiogenesis to this forum.

Check my debate on the matter first to see if I've answered your question or have addressed the topic you wish to discuss here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ask away!

I doubt you can tell me anything I haven't already read on this subject, but I will watch the thread just in case I'm wrong about that.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/6/2016 4:50:20 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:40:02 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
So, many know me as a science guy here on the site, and I truly love engaging in scientific discussion.
But it would appear that many who understand basic scientific concepts tend to run into a wall when talking about the origins of life on earth.

Well, I'm here to clear any of that up.

So, please, anyone...bring any question or topic with regards to the origin of life on earth or the specific explanation of abiogenesis to this forum.

Check my debate on the matter first to see if I've answered your question or have addressed the topic you wish to discuss here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ask away!

I doubt you can tell me anything I haven't already read on this subject, but I will watch the thread just in case I'm wrong about that.

LOL. You're so thinly veiled, Harry, you constantly brag about your alleged credentials and understanding of science, yet your posts show you know nothing at all but what's written in your holy book. Give it a rest, you're not fooling anyone.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 5:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
I doubt you can tell me anything I haven't already read on this subject, but I will watch the thread just in case I'm wrong about that.

Sounds fair.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 11:00:26 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/6/2016 4:40:02 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
So, many know me as a science guy here on the site, and I truly love engaging in scientific discussion.
But it would appear that many who understand basic scientific concepts tend to run into a wall when talking about the origins of life on earth.

Well, I'm here to clear any of that up.

So, please, anyone...bring any question or topic with regards to the origin of life on earth or the specific explanation of abiogenesis to this forum.

Check my debate on the matter first to see if I've answered your question or have addressed the topic you wish to discuss here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ask away!

I do have a question for you:

Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis, I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:46:31 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I do have a question for you:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis, I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections.

Well, that's not really a question...

Also, I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis, in fact the multiple lines of evidence indicating RNA as the dominant macro molecule in a prebiotic earth are rooted in the strong biochemical relationships with amino acids which naturally occur from inorganic compounds.

If you want to know names of people who object to this, you could search Google for "people who object to the RNA world" and you might find a lot of different names.

But what I think is more important is that because we know there was a prebiotic network of amino acid catylysts, we also know that catylysis favored the emergence of RNA, which is not only auto-catylitic, but can be copied in a template directed manner.

If you can imagine perhaps a phosphorus membrane that encapsulates both metabolizing amino acids and self-replicating RNA, you can imagine the first life.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 3:26:27 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/7/2016 2:46:31 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I do have a question for you:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis, I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections.

Well, that's not really a question...

Also, I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis, in fact the multiple lines of evidence indicating RNA as the dominant macro molecule in a prebiotic earth are rooted in the strong biochemical relationships with amino acids which naturally occur from inorganic compounds.

If you want to know names of people who object to this, you could search Google for "people who object to the RNA world" and you might find a lot of different names.

But what I think is more important is that because we know there was a prebiotic network of amino acid catylysts, we also know that catylysis favored the emergence of RNA, which is not only auto-catylitic, but can be copied in a template directed manner.

If you can imagine perhaps a phosphorus membrane that encapsulates both metabolizing amino acids and self-replicating RNA, you can imagine the first life.

It took me about 10 minutes to find that the RNA world hypothesis has many problems.
So your reply is, not making sense.
It is well liked because it is better than the other options.
One article calls it the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others.
An article in the U.S. National library of medicine, July, 2012.
It sure doesn't look like a slam dunk to me, which is what you seem to say.

"This is the best we've got, so let's go with it."
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 3:40:34 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Here is what a biochemist says - different article, Laurence Moran:

But the notion that RNA, on its own, spontaneously assembled and evolved on early Earth has fallen out of favor. More likely, whatever conditions spawned compounds as complex as nucleotides also generated other organics, perhaps early forms of modern amino acids and fatty acids, the constituent parts of proteins and membranes. "I"m not sure how many people anymore believe in a pure RNA world. I certainly don"t," says Lane. "I think the field has drifted away from that, and there"s now an acknowledgment it had to be "dirty."R01;"

Where I come from, if you don't know something, you don't make up a story that might work.
Lots of this kind of stuff around, from biochemists.

No, I am not an expert, but I know how to read what the experts write.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 1:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/7/2016 2:46:31 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I do have a question for you:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis, I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections.

Well, that's not really a question...

Also, I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis, in fact the multiple lines of evidence indicating RNA as the dominant macro molecule in a prebiotic earth are rooted in the strong biochemical relationships with amino acids which naturally occur from inorganic compounds.

If you want to know names of people who object to this, you could search Google for "people who object to the RNA world" and you might find a lot of different names.

But what I think is more important is that because we know there was a prebiotic network of amino acid catylysts, we also know that catylysis favored the emergence of RNA, which is not only auto-catylitic, but can be copied in a template directed manner.

If you can imagine perhaps a phosphorus membrane that encapsulates both metabolizing amino acids and self-replicating RNA, you can imagine the first life.

I see, so you don't know about some of the fundamental chemical or biochemical problems that frustrate claims about an RNA world?

I'm happy to discuss some of these with you but I'm puzzled as to why you're unaware of these controversies yet speak as one with authority on this subject.

You write "But what I think is more important..." which is rather dismissive when I politely asked you a rather simple question.

I put it to you that if you were as well read as your tone implies you'd be very aware of some of these fundamental problems.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/7/2016 3:26:27 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:46:31 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I do have a question for you:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis, I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections.

Well, that's not really a question...

Also, I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis, in fact the multiple lines of evidence indicating RNA as the dominant macro molecule in a prebiotic earth are rooted in the strong biochemical relationships with amino acids which naturally occur from inorganic compounds.

If you want to know names of people who object to this, you could search Google for "people who object to the RNA world" and you might find a lot of different names.

But what I think is more important is that because we know there was a prebiotic network of amino acid catylysts, we also know that catylysis favored the emergence of RNA, which is not only auto-catylitic, but can be copied in a template directed manner.

If you can imagine perhaps a phosphorus membrane that encapsulates both metabolizing amino acids and self-replicating RNA, you can imagine the first life.

It took me about 10 minutes to find that the RNA world hypothesis has many problems.
So your reply is, not making sense.
It is well liked because it is better than the other options.
One article calls it the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others.
An article in the U.S. National library of medicine, July, 2012.
It sure doesn't look like a slam dunk to me, which is what you seem to say.

"This is the best we've got, so let's go with it."

Thanks, this is what I'm talking about - the real world - not the cozy pretend, it'll be alright on the night delusion.

I'll get into more detail myself later, but there are plenty of problems with RNA world, one being that any environment that was conducive to the formation of nucleotide bases is also hostile to the appearance of ribose. Even making these bases outside of a lab is fraught with problems:

Robert Shapiro writes:

"By contrast, no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites, nor have the smaller units (nucleosides) that contain a sugar and base but lack the phosphate."

See: https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Nucleotide bases are unstable too at the temps required by abiogenesis proponents, at 100C adenine and guanine have chemical half lives of about a year, cytosine 19 days!

Ribose won't form in the presence of nitrogenous substances either (like peptides, amino acids etc).

But ribose AND nucleotide bases are required to build RNA.

Everything above is documented scientific fact, not speculation or fantasy, yet the abiogenesis proponents here don't even seem to know of these issues and there are many many more.

You'll find no mention of these in books by Dawkins and crew either, it seems discussing these shortcomings in pop-science books is simply not playing ball!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 4:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
This basic "primordial soup" idea has been around nearly 100 years now.
They really started getting serious about it in the 50's - 60's - serious efforts in the labs to duplicate nature.

Fifty years is a long time in the scientific community, for hands on laboratory theories.
We're not talking black holes, or what happened one minute before the big bang.

So for fifty years I have been told, 'All of the elements were there, they just had to come together under the right circumstances, and voila, you have life.'
No one ever said it was easy, just that it was a scientific certainty.

What I have seen is, the longer it goes, the more difficult it becomes.
The closer they get, the further they are.
You know that for decades scientists from all over the globe have been working on the problem, no publicity, just hoping they are the first. Behind closed doors for certain. This is just common sense. Most of the efforts are never publicized.
I remember reading articles 'We are almost there, so close.' That was decades ago, before the internet.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 7:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
It took me about 10 minutes to find that the RNA world hypothesis has many problems.

Such as?

So your reply is, not making sense.

Ok, what seems to be the problem with my reply?

It is well liked because it is better than the other options.

Seems reasonable to me.

One article calls it the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others.

What does "the worst theory except for all the others" mean?

An article in the U.S. National library of medicine, July, 2012.
It sure doesn't look like a slam dunk to me, which is what you seem to say.

Well, we've demonstrated inorganic-->organic, we've demonstrated RNA's role in replication, and we've demonstrated that at the core of an earthly prebiotic network, are amino acid catalysts that allow for the emergence of RNA.

None of that needs a "slam dunk;" it's just fact.

"This is the best we've got, so let's go with it."

Why should I reject RNA's emergence in a prebiotic network of amino acid catalysts?
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 7:28:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Here is what a biochemist says - different article, Laurence Moran:

But the notion that RNA, on its own, spontaneously assembled and evolved on early Earth has fallen out of favor. More likely, whatever conditions spawned compounds as complex as nucleotides

You mean like a prebiotic network of amino acid catalysts?

also generated other organics, perhaps early forms of modern amino acids and fatty acids,

Yeah like that.

the constituent parts of proteins and membranes. "I"m not sure how many people anymore believe in a pure RNA world. I certainly don"t," says Lane.

Yeah, if you read my debate on abiogenesis, I also never make that claim that it's pure RNA, in fact, most of my argument is based on abiogenesis, which is inorganic-->organic amino acids.

"I think the field has drifted away from that, and there"s now an acknowledgment it had to be "dirty."R01;"

Yeah, I've never claimed *pure* RNA.

Where I come from, if you don't know something, you don't make up a story that might work.

Haven't done that, if you check my debate on abiogenesis, you only fins evidence and no stories.
http://www.debate.org...

Lots of this kind of stuff around, from biochemists.

Argument ad populum and appeal to authority
I don't care how many or who, I care about reasons to accept/reject.

You have not provided any reasons to reject the way I have explained abiogenesis and you've proven my explanation with your quote about amino acids-->emergence of RNA.

No, I am not an expert, but I know how to read what the experts write.

Yeah, I don't claim expertise, but you should try reading the sources from my debate, to see what the experts actually have said on the matter.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 7:37:05 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I see, so you don't know about some of the fundamental chemical or biochemical problems that frustrate claims about an RNA world?

I think we might be talking about slightly different ideas.
I'm not claiming a *pure* RNA prebiotic network, for which the problems would be obvious, I'm claiming inorganic compounds-->organic compunds-->amino acid-based catalytic network-->emergence of RNA.

I'm not claiming that it was ALL RNA, but that RNA was able to emerge in this organic compound-based catalytic network.

I'm happy to discuss some of these with you but I'm puzzled as to why you're unaware of these controversies yet speak as one with authority on this subject.

Given the way that I've explained abiogenesis, as can be seen in my debate, there aren't chemical controversies. See for yourself.
http://www.debate.org...

You write "But what I think is more important..." which is rather dismissive when I politely asked you a rather simple question.

You wanted to know WHO was opposed to the RNA world, not WHY someone should be opposed to an RNA world, so yes I thought reasons to accept or reject the way that I've explained abiogenesis far outweigh WHO said something.

I put it to you that if you were as well read as your tone implies you'd be very aware of some of these fundamental problems.

I mean, are you talking about a highly oxidizing atmosphere?
Or that amino acids can destroy certain biomolecules?

You gotta come at me a little more specific than that.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 10:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Thanks, this is what I'm talking about - the real world - not the cozy pretend, it'll be alright on the night delusion.

Huh?
inorganic-->organic is a fact, not the cozy pretend.

I'll get into more detail myself later, but there are plenty of problems with RNA world, one being that any environment that was conducive to the formation of nucleotide bases is also hostile to the appearance of ribose. Even making these bases outside of a lab is fraught with problems:

Well, anything outside of a lab on earth today would have living organisms, right?
Well, when there was no life on earth, there were no other organisms to mitigate replication efforts.
Imagine a PREBIOTIC network...no competing life.

Robert Shapiro writes:

"By contrast, no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites, nor have the smaller units (nucleosides) that contain a sugar and base but lack the phosphate."

See: https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Seen.
It's just talking about a *pure* RNA world or the idea that RNA preceded the amino acids, but we all know that's silly.

Nucleotide bases are unstable too at the temps required by abiogenesis proponents, at 100C adenine and guanine have chemical half lives of about a year, cytosine 19 days!

What temps have you seen are required for the spark discharge experiments?
Seriously, show me the temps.

Ribose won't form in the presence of nitrogenous substances either (like peptides, amino acids etc).

Wrong.
"Ribose can be synthesized by heating aqueous formaldehyde with...catalytic amounts of glycolaldehdye (the "formose" reaction)"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And in case you're unaware, which it appears you are, glycolaldehdye can be converted to amino acids, these wonderful precursors you guys keep ignoring.
http://www.pnas.org...

But ribose AND nucleotide bases are required to build RNA.

Hence the R and the N in RNA.

Everything above is documented scientific fact, not speculation or fantasy, yet the abiogenesis proponents here don't even seem to know of these issues and there are many many more.

No, as I've shown, you're wrong on some things and you've misrepresented my explanation of abiogenesis which can be found in my debate on abiogenesis.
http://www.debate.org...

You'll find no mention of these in books by Dawkins and crew either, it seems discussing these shortcomings in pop-science books is simply not playing ball!

I don't give a sh*t who says what...you anti-evoers love to cite WHO said what and you forget to actually study the evidence.

I don't care what richard dawkins thinks about it, I care about what can be SHOWN not SAID.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 11:09:02 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/6/2016 4:40:02 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
So, many know me as a science guy here on the site, and I truly love engaging in scientific discussion.
But it would appear that many who understand basic scientific concepts tend to run into a wall when talking about the origins of life on earth.

Well, I'm here to clear any of that up.

So, please, anyone...bring any question or topic with regards to the origin of life on earth or the specific explanation of abiogenesis to this forum.

Check my debate on the matter first to see if I've answered your question or have addressed the topic you wish to discuss here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ask away!

What application would the theory lead to if it could be substantiated with strong evidence?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 11:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
This basic "primordial soup" idea has been around nearly 100 years now.
They really started getting serious about it in the 50's - 60's - serious efforts in the labs to duplicate nature.

Thanks Miller and Urey.

Fifty years is a long time in the scientific community, for hands on laboratory theories.

Ok...

We're not talking black holes, or what happened one minute before the big bang.

Right...

So for fifty years I have been told, 'All of the elements were there, they just had to come together under the right circumstances, and voila, you have life.'

Nope.
This is called a straw man.
All the studies showed is that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds through catalytic chemical reactions, and *this* fact allows for the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule.

No one ever said it was easy, just that it was a scientific certainty.

It's a scientific fact that inorganic compounds naturally react with each other to create organic compounds.

It's also a fact that amino acid chains, or polypeptides, will naturally fold onto themselves and become biologically active.
Without you guys addressing this, you are losing the argument.

What I have seen is, the longer it goes, the more difficult it becomes.

Maybe, but you have to remember that in a prebiotic network there are no competing organisms as is the case in any lab study now...damn bacteria everywhere and all.

The closer they get, the further they are.

A postbiotic earth is much different than a prebiotic earth, no?

You know that for decades scientists from all over the globe have been working on the problem, no publicity, just hoping they are the first. Behind closed doors for certain. This is just common sense. Most of the efforts are never publicized.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

I remember reading articles 'We are almost there, so close.' That was decades ago, before the internet.

Again, context please.
You need to show a reason to reject this scenario:

inorganic compounds-->organic amino acid compounds-->catalytic network-->emergence of organic molecules including the auto-catalytic and self-replicating RNA-->primitive membrane encapsulating metabolizing amino acids and self-replicating RNA-->simple cellular life.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 11:12:24 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
What application would the theory lead to if it could be substantiated with strong evidence?

It is substantiated with strong evidence, see my debate:
http://www.debate.org...

But your question is a good one.
We can apply it to chemistry and the way that basic biomolecules form and react so that we may understand the origins of some bacteria and even viruses.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/7/2016 7:17:34 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
It took me about 10 minutes to find that the RNA world hypothesis has many problems.

Such as?

So your reply is, not making sense.

Ok, what seems to be the problem with my reply?

It is well liked because it is better than the other options.

Seems reasonable to me.

One article calls it the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others.

What does "the worst theory except for all the others" mean?

An article in the U.S. National library of medicine, July, 2012.
It sure doesn't look like a slam dunk to me, which is what you seem to say.

Well, we've demonstrated inorganic-->organic, we've demonstrated RNA's role in replication, and we've demonstrated that at the core of an earthly prebiotic network, are amino acid catalysts that allow for the emergence of RNA.

None of that needs a "slam dunk;" it's just fact.

"This is the best we've got, so let's go with it."

Why should I reject RNA's emergence in a prebiotic network of amino acid catalysts?

Well, for myself, I have not rejected it, I just haven't accepted it.
You on the other hand, have accepted it. That's fine, it may be you are in an either/or situation, I am not.

What happened here is common.
Someone implies that there might be problems with 'RNA world', in this case.
You reply, no, of course not.
So it is pointed out that the 'RNA world', as it meant a few years ago, has been ditched, because of the problems.
So scientists have modified the theory, and now it didn't start with a RNA world, but a 'dirty' world, with lots of other stuff. Originally - 30 years ago - RNA was believed to be a primordial molecule. As happens in science, this wasn't accurate, and RNA had to be assembled from other molecules.
You say, 'Well, yes, of course it didn't all start with RNA.'
Defenders of Science first say 'There is no problem.', then say, 'Well, yes there were problems, but we have potential answers for them.'
The answers are not known to be true, but they are plausible.

Was RNA the first self replicating system, or was there an earlier one?
As I understand it, this is a question that has not been answered definitively.

Whatever the first self replicating system is, where did it come from?
Well, science, due to its nature, has to assume that it arose spontaneously.
In science, that is all that makes sense, everything that exists in nature arose spontaneously (or an earlier form - elephants did not arise spontaneously).
And if it didn't, Science will keep on looking anyway, which is fine.
What bothers me is when scientists say "Look, it all happened naturally, we have it all right here, and if we don't, trust us, we will."
Maybe it got a jolt from somewhere, that Science will never understand. That's okay for me, but not for others.

In Science every answer just raises more questions.
That's good, I am fine with that. It is a nice system. We don't want to give it up.
It is just that when some people say "Science has all the answers." , I am afraid they might all be fools.
Science is very good about coming up with questions, not quite as good at coming up with answers.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:53:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 3:58:33 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/7/2016 7:17:34 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
It took me about 10 minutes to find that the RNA world hypothesis has many problems.

Such as?

So your reply is, not making sense.

Ok, what seems to be the problem with my reply?

It is well liked because it is better than the other options.

Seems reasonable to me.

One article calls it the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others.

What does "the worst theory except for all the others" mean?

An article in the U.S. National library of medicine, July, 2012.
It sure doesn't look like a slam dunk to me, which is what you seem to say.

Well, we've demonstrated inorganic-->organic, we've demonstrated RNA's role in replication, and we've demonstrated that at the core of an earthly prebiotic network, are amino acid catalysts that allow for the emergence of RNA.

None of that needs a "slam dunk;" it's just fact.

"This is the best we've got, so let's go with it."

Why should I reject RNA's emergence in a prebiotic network of amino acid catalysts?

Well, for myself, I have not rejected it, I just haven't accepted it.
You on the other hand, have accepted it. That's fine, it may be you are in an either/or situation, I am not.

What happened here is common.
Someone implies that there might be problems with 'RNA world', in this case.
You reply, no, of course not.
So it is pointed out that the 'RNA world', as it meant a few years ago, has been ditched, because of the problems.
So scientists have modified the theory, and now it didn't start with a RNA world, but a 'dirty' world, with lots of other stuff. Originally - 30 years ago - RNA was believed to be a primordial molecule. As happens in science, this wasn't accurate, and RNA had to be assembled from other molecules.
You say, 'Well, yes, of course it didn't all start with RNA.'
Defenders of Science first say 'There is no problem.', then say, 'Well, yes there were problems, but we have potential answers for them.'
The answers are not known to be true, but they are plausible.

Was RNA the first self replicating system, or was there an earlier one?
As I understand it, this is a question that has not been answered definitively.

Whatever the first self replicating system is, where did it come from?
Well, science, due to its nature, has to assume that it arose spontaneously.
In science, that is all that makes sense, everything that exists in nature arose spontaneously (or an earlier form - elephants did not arise spontaneously).
And if it didn't, Science will keep on looking anyway, which is fine.
What bothers me is when scientists say "Look, it all happened naturally, we have it all right here, and if we don't, trust us, we will."
Maybe it got a jolt from somewhere, that Science will never understand. That's okay for me, but not for others.

In Science every answer just raises more questions.
That's good, I am fine with that. It is a nice system. We don't want to give it up.
It is just that when some people say "Science has all the answers." , I am afraid they might all be fools.
Science is very good about coming up with questions, not quite as good at coming up with answers.

Thank you for your contribution to the science forum. I hope everyone reads this.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 6:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Well, for myself, I have not rejected it, I just haven't accepted it.

That's fine, but remember that reasons should lead you to those conclusions, not straw man arguments.

You on the other hand, have accepted it. That's fine, it may be you are in an either/or situation, I am not.

Inorganic-->organic is a naturally occurring fact of chemistry.

What happened here is common.
Someone implies that there might be problems with 'RNA world', in this case.
You reply, no, of course not.

No, I said that the way that I have described abiogenesis which is that RNA was able to emerge in a prebiotic catalytic network of amino acids, among other things doesn't have the problems indicated by the person posing the question.

So it is pointed out that the 'RNA world', as it meant a few years ago, has been ditched, because of the problems.

Nope.
It pointed out that what some people call the RNA world varies from person to person and to understand what one means by RNA world, we need context.

So scientists have modified the theory, and now it didn't start with a RNA world, but a 'dirty' world, with lots of other stuff. Originally - 30 years ago - RNA was believed to be a primordial molecule. As happens in science, this wasn't accurate, and RNA had to be assembled from other molecules.

Nope.
It has always started with organic amino acid compounds arising from inorganic compounds...you're starting to straw man here.

You say, 'Well, yes, of course it didn't all start with RNA.'

Right, because that's not what the spark discharge experiments in the 50's showed, rather they showed inorganic-->organic.

Defenders of Science first say 'There is no problem.', then say, 'Well, yes there were problems, but we have potential answers for them.'

Defenders of science?
WTF are you talking about?
Things are demonstrated or they aren't regardless if one defends or ignores science.

The answers are not known to be true, but they are plausible.

If you check my debate on abiogenesis, all of the things are true and are cited in depth.

Was RNA the first self replicating system, or was there an earlier one?

If there were an earlier self replicating system, it didn't make it, instead RNA emerged as the dominant macromolecule because of its auto-catalytic property and its ability to self-replicate in a template directed manner.

As I understand it, this is a question that has not been answered definitively.

Your understanding is then unaware of the sources in my debate, so check it out.

Whatever the first self replicating system is, where did it come from?

The first self replicating system came from a prebiotic network of reacting, catalytic amino acids.
Amino acids, when part of polypeptides, fold onto each other and become biologically active structures.
In this reactive, biologically active network of amino acid catalysts, catalysis allows for the emergence of a dominant macromolecule that can be replicated in a template directed manner and is itself auto-catalytic...that's RNA.

Well, science, due to its nature, has to assume that it arose spontaneously.

Nope.
By using what we understand about catalysis and amino acids, we can use the data gathered to demonstrate such an occurrence, and wouldn't you know it, it's in my debate on abiogenesis.

In science, that is all that makes sense, everything that exists in nature arose spontaneously (or an earlier form - elephants did not arise spontaneously).

Nope.
We know that even on a fundamental level, particles interact and react and this produces many results.
These particles don't need to be spontaneous.

And if it didn't, Science will keep on looking anyway, which is fine.

You're going to have to get rid of that spontaneous idea if you're actually looking at the real data.

What bothers me is when scientists say "Look, it all happened naturally, we have it all right here, and if we don't, trust us, we will."

Why should this bother you.
Every answer that's ever solved a lingering problem uses a natural explanation, and I argue that to use anything other than a natural explanation to solve a mystery by definition just creates another mystery, thus not truly solving anything.

Maybe it got a jolt from somewhere, that Science will never understand. That's okay for me, but not for others.

Natural occurrences are all that have been demonstrated.

In Science every answer just raises more questions.
That's good, I am fine with that. It is a nice system. We don't want to give it up.

I'm fine with that statement.

It is just that when some people say "Science has all the answers." , I am afraid they might all be fools.

No one is saying that science has all of the answers, we're just saying that when we have mysteries, there's no better filtering out of bad ideas than science.

Science is very good about coming up with questions, not quite as good at coming up with answers.

I agree that questions shall always arise, in fact, that keeps me employed, but the fact that you're using some device to transmit signals to a network over the internet to communicate to someone who is way far away from you should show that science has been great with coming up with answers.

How do electrons behave?
Look at your screen and tell me.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 2:24:45 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 6:49:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Well, for myself, I have not rejected it, I just haven't accepted it.

That's fine, but remember that reasons should lead you to those conclusions, not straw man arguments.

You on the other hand, have accepted it. That's fine, it may be you are in an either/or situation, I am not.

Inorganic-->organic is a naturally occurring fact of chemistry.

What happened here is common.
Someone implies that there might be problems with 'RNA world', in this case.
You reply, no, of course not.

No, I said that the way that I have described abiogenesis which is that RNA was able to emerge in a prebiotic catalytic network of amino acids, among other things doesn't have the problems indicated by the person posing the question.

So it is pointed out that the 'RNA world', as it meant a few years ago, has been ditched, because of the problems.

Nope.
It pointed out that what some people call the RNA world varies from person to person and to understand what one means by RNA world, we need context.

Context?
Dirty.Harry says:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis


You didn't ask for context when you replied:
I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis,


And if we are going to bring up strawmen, how about your:
"You wanted to know WHO was opposed to the RNA world, not WHY someone should be opposed to an RNA world"


It sure sounded to me like he wanted to know WHY someone would be opposed to a RNA World hypothesis. It looks very clear to me. Post #5, plain as day.

So scientists have modified the theory, and now it didn't start with a RNA world, but a 'dirty' world, with lots of other stuff. Originally - 30 years ago - RNA was believed to be a primordial molecule. As happens in science, this wasn't accurate, and RNA had to be assembled from other molecules.

Nope.
It has always started with organic amino acid compounds arising from inorganic compounds...you're starting to straw man here.

You tell us it is a done deal.
We know how, we can not do it in a lab, no big deal, at least we know how.

but I read this:
The general notion of an "RNA World" is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA and genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts. There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist before DNA- and protein-based life. However, arguments regarding whether life on Earth began with RNA are more tenuous. It might be imagined that all of the components of RNA were available in some prebiotic pool, and that these components assembled into replicating, evolving polynucleotides without the prior existence of any evolved macromolecules. A thorough consideration of this "RNA-first" view of the origin of life must reconcile concerns regarding the intractable mixtures that are obtained in experiments designed to simulate the chemistry of the primitive Earth. Perhaps these concerns will eventually be resolved, and recent experimental findings provide some reason for optimism. However, the problem of the origin of the RNA World is far from being solved, and it is fruitful to consider the alternative possibility that RNA was preceded by some other replicating, evolving molecule, just as DNA and proteins were preceded by RNA.
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...

So it seems to me my strawman has some blood and guts.

To your credit my reference does say "The RNA World" means different things to different investigators", but I will point out that in the beginning you had no problems talking as though we all know what "RNA world" meant, and there were no problems with the hypothesis.

You say, 'Well, yes, of course it didn't all start with RNA.'

Right, because that's not what the spark discharge experiments in the 50's showed, rather they showed inorganic-->organic.

Defenders of Science first say 'There is no problem.', then say, 'Well, yes there were problems, but we have potential answers for them.'

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 2:32:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 6:49:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Defenders of science?
WTF are you talking about?
Things are demonstrated or they aren't regardless if one defends or ignores science.

How clueless are you?
Defenders of Science say "We have the answers to everything, just stay tuned."
Others say - "Science does not have all the answers, and some of the answers it provides are not accurate, not congruent with reality."
You think there is only one meaning to your statement "Things are demonstrated or they aren't......"
You are a bigot.
Your way or the highway.
Intelligent, rational, educated adults disagree with you, and you act as though they do not exist.

The answers are not known to be true, but they are plausible.

If you check my debate on abiogenesis, all of the things are true and are cited in depth.

How can you say we should believe it is true that life arose spontaneously from inorganic matter?
Do it, and we will have justification for your belief.
Go in the lab and provide the scientific evidence.
Isn't that what Science requires?
You start with a hypothesis, develop an experiment to demonstrate it as true, preform it a few times with consistent results, and you are done, you have your scientific evidence.
Until then, it may be plausible, but that does not equate with true.

Was RNA the first self replicating system, or was there an earlier one?

If there were an earlier self replicating system, it didn't make it, instead RNA emerged as the dominant macromolecule because of its auto-catalytic property and its ability to self-replicate in a template directed manner.

As I understand it, this is a question that has not been answered definitively.

Your understanding is then unaware of the sources in my debate, so check it out.


Whatever the first self replicating system is, where did it come from?

The first self replicating system came from a prebiotic network of reacting, catalytic amino acids.
Amino acids, when part of polypeptides, fold onto each other and become biologically active structures.
In this reactive, biologically active network of amino acid catalysts, catalysis allows for the emergence of a dominant macromolecule that can be replicated in a template directed manner and is itself auto-catalytic...that's RNA.

And what is your evidence for this?
How is it you know it was not a case of panspermia?
How its it you know that it NOT true that one day there was no life on earth, and it was introduced the very next day by an outside source?
I'd be interested in seeing your scientific evidence this is not how it happened.
If Science can't demonstrate it, don't believe it, right?

Well, science, due to its nature, has to assume that it arose spontaneously.

Nope.
By using what we understand about catalysis and amino acids, we can use the data gathered to demonstrate such an occurrence, and wouldn't you know it, it's in my debate on abiogenesis.

"The data demonstrates"
The numbers tell us it had to happen the way you describe.
No other possibility.
There have been times when "the data" indicates something can or cannot happen, and it turns out the data was incorrect, or the conclusions were incorrect, which amounts to the same.

In science, that is all that makes sense, everything that exists in nature arose spontaneously (or an earlier form - elephants did not arise spontaneously).

Nope.
We know that even on a fundamental level, particles interact and react and this produces many results.
These particles don't need to be spontaneous.

And if it didn't, Science will keep on looking anyway, which is fine.

You're going to have to get rid of that spontaneous idea if you're actually looking at the real data.

What bothers me is when scientists say "Look, it all happened naturally, we have it all right here, and if we don't, trust us, we will."

Why should this bother you.
Every answer that's ever solved a lingering problem uses a natural explanation, and I argue that to use anything other than a natural explanation to solve a mystery by definition just creates another mystery, thus not truly solving anything.

Okay, so the origin of the universe has been a lingering problem.
What happened one minute before the big bang? (rhetorical)

Using science and natural causes does not solve all mysteries.
It just pushes the questions back one notch.
Once again I must point out I think Science does a real nice job on many fronts, but it has a track record of getting many issues wrong before it gets it right. It brags that this is its strong point, self correcting, which is simply a truth for all disciplines, not only science.
For many people "It could have happened this way.", becomes "It did happen this way." I see that from defenders of Science as well as religionists.

Maybe it got a jolt from somewhere, that Science will never understand. That's okay for me, but not for others.

Natural occurrences are all that have been demonstrated.

And yet, Science can not demonstrate it happened as you say.
"The data shows" it could have, but you can't do it.
And, truth be told, just because you can do it, does not mean that is how it happened.

In Science every answer just raises more questions.
That's good, I am fine with that. It is a nice system. We don't want to give it up.

I'm fine with that statement.

It is just that when some people say "Science has all the answers." , I am afraid they might all be fools.

No one is saying that science has all of the answers, we're just saying that when we have mysteries, there's no better filtering out of bad ideas than science.

Well, Science precludes certain explanations, as being beyond its capabilities.
"We don't go there." Others do, but not Scientists.

Science is very good about coming up with questions, not quite as good at coming up with answers.

I agree that questions shall always arise, in fact, that keeps me employed, but the fact that you're using some device to transmit signals to a network over the internet to communicate to someone who is way far away from you should show that science has been great with coming up with answers.

How do electrons behave?
Look at your screen and tell me.

What kind of fallacious reasoning is this?
Are you serious?
Hey, I removed a splinter from my finger, so let me remove your appendix.
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 3:22:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 2:32:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/8/2016 6:49:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Defenders of science?
WTF are you talking about?
Things are demonstrated or they aren't regardless if one defends or ignores science.

How clueless are you?
I would say, less so than you. :grin:


Defenders of Science say "We have the answers to everything, just stay tuned."
Others say - "Science does not have all the answers, and some of the answers it provides are not accurate, not congruent with reality."
In reality, we know a lot about (very) roughly 5% of the world.
About the remaining 95% we know nothing, except that no-one else does either.


You think there is only one meaning to your statement "Things are demonstrated or they aren't......"
You are a bigot.
Your way or the highway.
Intelligent, rational, educated adults disagree with you, and you act as though they do not exist.
Wow! :roll:
You seem jealous of the success of science?

Science is the best thing there is for understanding the world and how it operates. Science is the search for truth and reliable knowledge about the world, including ourselves. Anyone who buys a pill at the drugstore for his headache, drives a car or boards an airplane, uses his or her oven in the kitchen, or even just switches on the light or their TV or computer, has accepted the way science has affected our lives.
Thus, anyone who deprecates scientific knowledge, is either ignorant or deliberately lying.

How can you say we should believe it is true that life arose spontaneously from inorganic matter?
Do it, and we will have justification for your belief.
Go in the lab and provide the scientific evidence.
Isn't that what Science requires?
No. Most certainly not.

Until then, it may be plausible, but that does not equate with true.
What you don't seem to understand is: nothing in life is certain or true.
As Karl Popper (the father of the way we do science today) once wrote, science is the search for truth. And even if we don't reach it, we can know that we came closer to understanding the truth.

Science is about providing explanations for the way things most likely happen. Thus scientific knowledge e is about plausibility; it is NOT about proof.

In summary, scientific statements must at all times be viewed as provisional, until a better explanation comes along.
If you don't have a better explanation, then it is wiser to keep quiet and leave it up to the experts. Or, as the old African saying goes...
Mice should not walk where elephants dance.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 4:41:45 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Context?
Dirty.Harry says:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis

And what you left out was this little gem from that exact same post, which you obviously deleted
"I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections"

You didn't ask for context when you replied:
I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis,

Assuming that he had read my explanation of abiogenesis from the OP of this forum, I thought the context was my explanation of RNA world, but you're right, you shouldn't assume things i guess.

And if we are going to bring up strawmen, how about your:
"You wanted to know WHO was opposed to the RNA world, not WHY someone should be opposed to an RNA world"

Why did you delete this from the exact thing you are referencing here?
"I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections"

It sure sounded to me like he wanted to know WHY someone would be opposed to a RNA World hypothesis. It looks very clear to me. Post #5, plain as day.

He said he wanted names.
How does "I want names" mean "I want reasons?"

You tell us it is a done deal.

inorganic compounds-->organic compounds is such a basic concept of chemistry, but you have yet to combat this...this fact in and of itself is a done deal.

We know how, we can not do it in a lab, no big deal, at least we know how.

We know that given the Miller-Urey experiment and its subsequent replications, that
1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine.
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine.
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, yielded methionine.
http://www.pnas.org...

but I read this:
The general notion of an "RNA World" is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA and genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts.

Genetic polymers were most certainly a part of catalysis in my explanation of abiogenesis in the debate I have asked you to check out. So check it out.

So it seems to me my strawman has some blood and guts.

No.
You claimed that I said RNA before amino acid catalysts...this is simply a straw man.
I've made clear over and over again that amino acid catalysts allowed for the emergence of RNA, not the other way around.

Directly from my debate:
"mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner...many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

To your credit my reference does say "The RNA World" means different things to different investigators", but I will point out that in the beginning you had no problems talking as though we all know what "RNA world" meant, and there were no problems with the hypothesis.

Ok, perhaps I could have been clearer then, but if anyone had looked at my debate, this would have been easily understood.
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 4:58:32 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 4:41:45 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

We know that given the Miller-Urey experiment and its subsequent replications, that
1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine.
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine.
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, yielded methionine.
http://www.pnas.org...

Moreover, Miller-Urey is 70 years old. You can't really glean much from Miller-Urey unless you consider Spiegelman's and Eigen's work in the context.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.sns.ias.edu...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:51:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
How clueless are you?
Defenders of Science say "We have the answers to everything, just stay tuned."

Nope.
There's that straw man again.

Others say - "Science does not have all the answers, and some of the answers it provides are not accurate, not congruent with reality."

So atomic theory, plate tectonics, gravity, and meteorology are not congruent with reality?
If you say that they aren't congruent with reality, how so?
If you say that they actually ARE congruent with reality, then what makes these scientific answers congruent with reality and the answers you fail to point out incongruous with reality?

You think there is only one meaning to your statement "Things are demonstrated or they aren't......"

Yup, you got it.

You are a bigot.

How am I intolerant?

Your way or the highway.

No.
Demonstrated or failed to be demonstrated
.
Intelligent, rational, educated adults disagree with you, and you act as though they do not exist.

Appeal to authority.
I don't care what or how many intelligent people agree or disagree with, I care about WHY they agree or disagree, and fallacies like an appeal to authority or population aren't reasons; they're appeals.
Fallacious.

How can you say we should believe it is true that life arose spontaneously from inorganic matter?

Who said spontaneous?
We should believe that life arose from inorganic matter eventually, because living cells can metabolize and reproduce, and in a prebiotic network of amino acids, which themselves metabolize compounds into energy, and RNA, which can self-replicate, any encapsulation of amino acids and RNA would then function as the first living cell...metabolism and reproduction.

Do it, and we will have justification for your belief.

Do you just ignore the evidence?
Here it is again:

1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, and UV rays likely of a prebiotic earth, inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.
http://www.pnas.org...

2. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3. Biologically active amino acid sequences can in fact metabolize compounds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they tend to increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of amino acids, RNA can emerge due to its auto-catalytic property.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this, was able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

6. With biologically active amino acid chains and self-replicating RNA, membranes can form, which all combined forms a protocell.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Go in the lab and provide the scientific evidence.

See above.

Isn't that what Science requires?

Is what the National Library of Medicine publishes what science requires or no?

You start with a hypothesis, develop an experiment to demonstrate it as true, preform it a few times with consistent results, and you are done, you have your scientific evidence.

Like the links provided above?

Until then, it may be plausible, but that does not equate with true.

You've given no reason to reject any of the evidence I have provided on the matter.

And what is your evidence for this?

See above.

How is it you know it was not a case of panspermia?

Panspermia assumes way more.
There would have to be a previous venue for this life.
There would have to be a vehicle for this life to reach earth.

With abiogenesis, the venue is already known and we don't need to assume any vehicles.
Panspermia violates Ockham's razor.

But I will be honest, panspermia is at least possible, and if I could see more evidence for its specific parameters, I could buy it.

How its it you know that it NOT true that one day there was no life on earth, and it was introduced the very next day by an outside source?

Again, what is this outside source we must assume?
Wouldn't we also have to assume its characteristics?
When you require more assumptions, you violate Ockham's razor.

I'd be interested in seeing your scientific evidence this is not how it happened.

This is called the shifting of the burden of proof.
You propose some unknown agent, and rather than provide evidence for your agent, you attempt to shift the burden on to me to somehow disprove it...you either demonstrate your claim or you don't...it's not my responsibility to disprove fairy agents, instead, show me they exist.

If Science can't demonstrate it, don't believe it, right?

If something isn't demonstrated, we have no reason to accept it.

"The data demonstrates"
The numbers tell us it had to happen the way you describe.
No other possibility.

The evidence indicates that RNA emerged from a prebiotic catalytic network-->first cell.

There have been times when "the data" indicates something can or cannot happen, and it turns out the data was incorrect, or the conclusions were incorrect, which amounts to the same.

So?
The only thing that would remedy this is more demonstrable evidence, no?

Okay, so the origin of the universe has been a lingering problem.

Not for me.
Quantum fluctuations-->big bang has more than enough evidence to settle my worries.

What happened one minute before the big bang? (rhetorical)

Can you ask a temporal question about something without time?
If there's no time, there's no before.

Using science and natural causes does not solve all mysteries.

Yeah, but if you propose something other than the natural, you are appealing to another mystery.

It just pushes the questions back one notch.

Maybe in some cases.

Once again I must point out I think Science does a real nice job on many fronts, but it has a track record of getting many issues wrong before it gets it right. It brags that this is its strong point, self correcting, which is simply a truth for all disciplines, not only science.

Ok...

For many people "It could have happened this way.", becomes "It did happen this way." I see that from defenders of Science as well as religionists.

Well, the more evidence, the less uncertainty.

And yet, Science can not demonstrate it happened as you say.

You just don't read much I guess.
Oh well.

"The data shows" it could have, but you can't do it.

The data shows that we have every reason to accept such a claim.

And, truth be told, just because you can do it, does not mean that is how it happened.

That's fair.

Well, Science precludes certain explanations, as being beyond its capabilities.

Ok, but if it's beyond science's capabilities, how would you go about demonstrating it?

"We don't go there." Others do, but not Scientists.

Where is there?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 3:22:12 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 11/9/2016 2:32:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/8/2016 6:49:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Defenders of science?
WTF are you talking about?
Things are demonstrated or they aren't regardless if one defends or ignores science.

How clueless are you?
I would say, less so than you. :grin:


Defenders of Science say "We have the answers to everything, just stay tuned."
Others say - "Science does not have all the answers, and some of the answers it provides are not accurate, not congruent with reality."
In reality, we know a lot about (very) roughly 5% of the world.
About the remaining 95% we know nothing, except that no-one else does either.


You think there is only one meaning to your statement "Things are demonstrated or they aren't......"
You are a bigot.
Your way or the highway.
Intelligent, rational, educated adults disagree with you, and you act as though they do not exist.
Wow! :roll:
You seem jealous of the success of science?

Science is the best thing there is for understanding the world and how it operates.

Well now, is it the best thing, or the only thing??????

Science is the search for truth and reliable knowledge about the world, including ourselves. Anyone who buys a pill at the drugstore for his headache, drives a car or boards an airplane, uses his or her oven in the kitchen, or even just switches on the light or their TV or computer, has accepted the way science has affected our lives.
Thus, anyone who deprecates scientific knowledge, is either ignorant or deliberately lying.

And anyone who thinks Science is the only source of knowledge is ignorant.

How can you say we should believe it is true that life arose spontaneously from inorganic matter?
Do it, and we will have justification for your belief.
Go in the lab and provide the scientific evidence.
Isn't that what Science requires?
No. Most certainly not.

Until then, it may be plausible, but that does not equate with true.
What you don't seem to understand is: nothing in life is certain or true.
That's a good fairy tale.
Who told you that, Santa clause?

As Karl Popper (the father of the way we do science today) once wrote, science is the search for truth. And even if we don't reach it, we can know that we came closer to understanding the truth.

So, you believe there is only one way to search for truth - Science.
What about Logic? Have you ever heard of that?????
Science uses it sometimes, borrowed from philosophy, but Logic can exist independently from Science.

Science is about providing explanations for the way things most likely happen. Thus scientific knowledge e is about plausibility; it is NOT about proof.

And we know that many things that are plausible are false, mistaken beliefs, hogwash.

In summary, scientific statements must at all times be viewed as provisional, until a better explanation comes along.
If you don't have a better explanation, then it is wiser to keep quiet and leave it up to the experts. Or, as the old African saying goes...

And when Science can offer no opinion, because it is outside the realm of Science, then what?

Mice should not walk where elephants dance.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 6:27:46 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Science is the best thing there is for understanding the world and how it operates.

Well now, is it the best thing, or the only thing??????

The best thing, of course!

And anyone who thinks Science is the only source of knowledge is ignorant.

You are free to name other good sources of knowledge.

What you don't seem to understand is: nothing in life is certain or true.
That's a good fairy tale.
Who told you that, Santa clause?
Nope! I really do think, you understand nothing about how scientific research is done in practice.


As Karl Popper (the father of the way we do science today) once wrote, science is the search for truth. And even if we don't reach it, we can know that we came closer to understanding the truth.

So, you believe there is only one way to search for truth - Science.
Not science itself, but the scientific method of rational thinking.


What about Logic? Have you ever heard of that?????
Science uses it sometimes, borrowed from philosophy, but Logic can exist independently from Science.

That is true.
BTW... what is the origin of logic?

Science is about providing explanations for the way things most likely happen. Thus scientific knowledge e is about plausibility; it is NOT about proof.


And we know that many things that are plausible are false, mistaken beliefs, hogwash.
Would you care to give examples for this "hogwash"?

In summary, scientific statements must at all times be viewed as provisional, until a better explanation comes along.
If you don't have a better explanation, then it is wiser to keep quiet and leave it up to the experts. Or, as the old African saying goes...


And when Science can offer no opinion, because it is outside the realm of Science, then what?
Then it's metaphysics and by definition "outside of physics"
Can you cite examples of things that you can explain, but science cannot?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:41:59 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 4:41:45 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Context?
Dirty.Harry says:
Please summarize in your own words some of the fundamental chemical and biochemical problems that scientists have identified with the "RNA World" hypothesis

And what you left out was this little gem from that exact same post, which you obviously deleted
"I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections"

So what is the problem here?
You do not seem to understand one person can ask two questions.
He clearly asked a question, that you claim he did not.

You didn't ask for context when you replied:
I don't know that there are many chemical problems with the RNA World hypothesis,

Assuming that he had read my explanation of abiogenesis from the OP of this forum, I thought the context was my explanation of RNA world, but you're right, you shouldn't assume things i guess.

And if we are going to bring up strawmen, how about your:
"You wanted to know WHO was opposed to the RNA world, not WHY someone should be opposed to an RNA world"

Why did you delete this from the exact thing you are referencing here?
"I'd be interest in the names of those who've raised prominent objections"

See above, two questions should not be beyond your capabilities.

It sure sounded to me like he wanted to know WHY someone would be opposed to a RNA World hypothesis. It looks very clear to me. Post #5, plain as day.

He said he wanted names.
How does "I want names" mean "I want reasons?"

See above.
I reference part of his post, you ignore it and go somewhere else.

You tell us it is a done deal.

inorganic compounds-->organic compounds is such a basic concept of chemistry, but you have yet to combat this...this fact in and of itself is a done deal.

"Once upon a time."
Done deal the whole story, don't expect any more.

We know how, we can not do it in a lab, no big deal, at least we know how.

We know that given the Miller-Urey experiment and its subsequent replications, that
1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine.
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine.
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, yielded methionine.

http://www.pnas.org...


Yeah, so, show me the self replicating life they created from inorganic matter.

but I read this:
The general notion of an "RNA World" is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA and genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts.

Genetic polymers were most certainly a part of catalysis in my explanation of abiogenesis in the debate I have asked you to check out. So check it out.

So it seems to me my strawman has some blood and guts.

No.
You claimed that I said RNA before amino acid catalysts...this is simply a straw man.
I've made clear over and over again that amino acid catalysts allowed for the emergence of RNA, not the other way around.

I never spoke of amino acids.

Directly from my debate:
"mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner...many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

To your credit my reference does say "The RNA World" means different things to different investigators", but I will point out that in the beginning you had no problems talking as though we all know what "RNA world" meant, and there were no problems with the hypothesis.

Ok, perhaps I could have been clearer then, but if anyone had looked at my debate, this would have been easily understood.