12 Jun 23
@moonbus saidWell, I thought you were going to show me something that backed up your claims about error checking and enzymes, another dodge eh, cannot back up your claims so change the subject with insults. How scientific of you.
@KellyJay
Please note the following article (just by way of example):
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01847-8
That is what real science looks like. Peer-reviewed, evidence- and fact-based.
What James Tour presents on youtube is sensationalised pseudo-science, frankly an embarrassment to science.
12 Jun 23
@moonbus saidhttps://www.jmtour.com/publications/all-publications/
@KellyJay
Please note the following article (just by way of example):
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01847-8
That is what real science looks like. Peer-reviewed, evidence- and fact-based.
What James Tour presents on youtube is sensationalised pseudo-science, frankly an embarrassment to science.
12 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidI am not saying Tour is a poor scientist in general. I'm saying that what he presented as a YouTube video isn't serious science. It's sensationalised, dumbed-down, for a non-scientific audience.
https://www.jmtour.com/publications/all-publications/
You would cut a better figure at the science forum if you would present serious scientific articles for discussion.
@divegeester saidExcellent article. It clearly presents the known unknowns. TU from me, Dive.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/
"There is good reason to think that the emergence of life on the Earth did not just involve a long string of random chemical events that fortuitously led to a simple living system. If life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the mechanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation—a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually zero. However, the general view, now strongly supported by recent studies in systems chemistry, is that the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles, and the central goal of OOL studies should therefore be to delineate those principles."
This is what several people here have been saying all along: KJ presents a false dichotomy of either Mind-guided or random chance. The random factor is operative only at the level of occasional genetic mutations. There is a third path between the horns of the pseudo-dilemma, namely the repeated operation of chemical and physical laws which replicate complex molecules, and that is where scientific research is focusing its efforts to understand the origins of life.
12 Jun 23
@moonbus saidYou talk out of both sides of your face.
I am not saying Tour is a poor scientist in general. I'm saying that what he presented as a YouTube video isn't serious science. It's sensationalised, dumbed-down, for a non-scientific audience.
You would cut a better figure at the science forum if you would present serious scientific articles for discussion.
@kellyjay saidWhen soda and vinegar come into contact, there is no error, nothing to check, and no error checking is going on there. Same with enzymes. Same with amino acids. Enzymes don't commit errors, there is nothing to check and no error checking goes on there. There is no such thing as right or not-right, when talking about chemical reactions. If some other chemical or causal factor prevents a particular reaction from happening, that's not an error, it's simply a different chemical reaction.
Well, I thought you were going to show me something that backed up your claims about error checking and enzymes, another dodge eh, cannot back up your claims so change the subject with insults. How scientific of you.
12 Jun 23
@KellyJay
PS
You're really stuck on the idea of "error checking", aren't you? Someone put that fly in your ear and it's been buzzing like mad ever since. Only humans and computers do error checking, or need to. Chemicals don't, molecules don't, enzymes don't, amino acids don't, soda and vinegar don't; neither do chimps, cats, rats, bats, dolphins, roses, nettles, cacti, bacteria, or any other life forms on Earth. Just not happening, except in some people's imaginations.
13 Jun 23
@moonbus saidI have worked on the backend of CPU manufacturing R&D for about 20 years, those things require a mind with a grasp of all things possible. You believe as luck would have it, they just happened?
@KellyJay
PS
You're really stuck on the idea of "error checking", aren't you? Someone put that fly in your ear and it's been buzzing like mad ever since. Only humans and computers do error checking, or need to. Chemicals don't, molecules don't, enzymes don't, amino acids don't, soda and vinegar don't; neither do chimps, cats, rats, bats, dolphins, roses, nettles, cacti ...[text shortened]... acteria, or any other life forms on Earth. Just not happening, except in some people's imaginations.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121295
13 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidWhat alternate hypothesis do you have for the origin of life other than what have been offered up in this thread?
I have worked on the backend of CPU manufacturing R&D for about 20 years, those things require a mind with a grasp of all things possible. You believe as luck would have it, they just happened?
13 Jun 23
1 edit
@kellyjay saidOf course CPUs did not just happen; they were designed and they were designed to do error checking because if CPUs get wrong answers, airplanes crash. Enzymes are not CPUs. Enzymes do not make mistakes or errors. There is no such thing as a wrong answer for an enzyme.
I have worked on the backend of CPU manufacturing R&D for about 20 years, those things require a mind with a grasp of all things possible. You believe as luck would have it, they just happened?
13 Jun 23
@divegeester saidI think we all know what his alternative hypothesis is, but since it is not testable, it does not deserve mention in this forum.
What alternate hypothesis do you have for the origin of life other than what have been offered up in this thread?
13 Jun 23
@moonbus saidLife is much more sophisticated than any CPU, and you think what produced life was a mindless process.
Of course CPUs did not just happen; they were designed and they were designed to do error checking because if CPUs get wrong answers, airplanes crash. Enzymes are not CPUs. Enzymes do not make mistakes or errors. There is no such thing as a wrong answer for an enzyme.
14 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidEvery religion has its' own version of the creation story. Nature needs no brain, or mind,
Life is much more sophisticated than any CPU, and you think what produced life was a mindless process.
but just pretending for a moment that everything was created, what scientific evidence have you and your pretend scientist that it was the Christian god who made it all, as opposed to any of the dozens of other contenders?