14 Jun 23
@moonbus saidOccassional genetic mutation requires the existence of a genome. Abiogenesis and evolution are completely unrelated.
Excellent article. It clearly presents the known unknowns. TU from me, Dive.
"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 wit ...[text shortened]... that is where scientific research is focusing its efforts to understand the origins of life.
Abiogenesis concerns the chemical part before the natural selection part. Kellyjay seems to go back and forth between these two very different concepts as it suits the argument.
Perhaps the argument then centers on the definition of "governed" in your quoted article. Who is the governor?
14 Jun 23
@wildgrass
The article to which dive linked makes the case that there appears to be a kind of 'evolution' of complex proto-animate molecules which parallels the evolution of animate organisms, tending towards increasing complexity of self-replicators. The concept is relatively new, "DKS" or dynamic kinetic stability. It appears to be a special case of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that systems tend towards stability, but this had until recently been interpreted to be static stability. Dynamic kinetic stability is the ability to maintain stability in changing environments by altering internal parameters; this was until recently held to be possible for living organisms only (homeostasis), not for inorganic matter. But it now appears that some proto-organic molecules which replicate exhibit a similar tendency towards increasing complexity; this offers such molecules a 'survival advantage' over less complex replicators in that their repertoire of responses to environmental changes is greater and therefore they tend to outnumber the simpler molecules.
However, while there is an apparent parallel evolutionary process going on, both at the molecular level for proto-organic molecules, and for living organisms, I doubt KJ was referring to this phenomenon. I rather think he confuses the chemical processes contributing to the origins of life, and natural selection of established organisms.
@kellyjay saidYes, the first simple life forms came about through mindless processes. Minds evolved later on and look back in wonder at it how happened.
Life is much more sophisticated than any CPU, and you think what produced life was a mindless process.
I totally get it: you worked in the IT industry, so that is your model of how things work in general: you think the universe is a big IT system, with error checking and a Big Bill Gates who designed it all. If you'd been a school teacher instead, you'd probably think the universe runs on rules of grammar, designed by a Big Merriam Webster.
14 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidYou can "pretend" what occurs in nature doesn't require a mind behind it, but that is what you must do, pretend. The guy is a world-class scientist in his field, the fact you call him a pretend scientist as you also are proclaiming mindlessness is responsible just show how you have turned off your brain in favor of your worldview. Not sure what other contenders you think there are? You don't have a narrative about the beginning that takes into account everything we see in the universe, you just pretend.
Every religion has its' own version of the creation story. Nature needs no brain, or mind,
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?
14 Jun 23
@wildgrass saidYou are utterly wrong, you don't get to evolution if you don't have life. You have to have a beginning that sets up everything in life so it can operate as it should, without dying, from all of the necessary building block material to the instructions that guide the processes making the instructions primary. Avoiding this is just sticking your head somewhere to avoid things your worldview cannot explain even remotely.
Occassional genetic mutation requires the existence of a genome. Abiogenesis and evolution are completely unrelated.
Abiogenesis concerns the chemical part before the natural selection part. Kellyjay seems to go back and forth between these two very different concepts as it suits the argument.
Perhaps the argument then centers on the definition of "governed" in your quoted article. Who is the governor?
14 Jun 23
@moonbus saidHow, did that happen, explain the mechanisms that mindlessness employed. You make sweeping comments about how mindlessness did that with absolutely nothing to back them up! I guess if you have no intention of having to defend your undefendable views you can deny or make any claim you desire, truth, evidence, and reason have nothing to do with your stance.
Yes, the first simple life forms came about through mindless processes. Minds evolved later on and look back in wonder at it how happened.
I totally get it: you worked in the IT industry, so that is your model of how things work in general: you think the universe is a big IT system, with error checking and a Big Bill Gates who designed it all. If you'd been a school teache ...[text shortened]... tead, you'd probably think the universe runs on rules of grammar, designed by a Big Merriam Webster.
14 Jun 23
@moonbus saidBetter than Big Oxford, eh?
Yes, the first simple life forms came about through mindless processes. Minds evolved later on and look back in wonder at it how happened.
I totally get it: you worked in the IT industry, so that is your model of how things work in general: you think the universe is a big IT system, with error checking and a Big Bill Gates who designed it all. If you'd been a school teache ...[text shortened]... tead, you'd probably think the universe runs on rules of grammar, designed by a Big Merriam Webster.
😏
@kellyjay saidThere have been several links to articles which do explain this. You evidently haven't read them, or don't understood them if you have read them. The basic chemistry is known. The unknowns are also known: it isn't known exactly at what time of day it happened or in which ocean, but the basic chemistry is clearly explainable. You just don't want to believe it, that's all.
How, did that happen, explain the mechanisms that mindlessness employed. You make sweeping comments about how mindlessness did that with absolutely nothing to back them up! I guess if you have no intention of having to defend your undefendable views you can deny or make any claim you desire, truth, evidence, and reason have nothing to do with your stance.
Below is one explanation:
"reaction network that could oscillate under continuous flow conditions, using a microreactor (a continuously stirred tank reactor, CSTR), to provide an elemental model for a protocell (Figure 1a).2 The oscillations are a result of three logical steps in the network (i-iii, highlighted in grey), which can be described by a set of reactions and their corresponding time traces (Figure 1b): (i) a “triggering step”, that produces the activator (ethanethiol) but that is immediately being inhibited by a strong inhibitor (maleimide). The inhibitor concentration thus creates a critical threshold that needs to be overcome, providing a lag phase. (ii) “Auto-amplification”, during which each ethanethiol is converted into two new thiols (i.e. cysteamine, and alanine mercaptoethyl amide) facilitated by sulfide-disulfide exchange and Kent ligation. This reaction (or set of reactions) is autocatalytic and abruptly converts cysteamine into an amide. (iii) “Termination”, when the majority of produced thiols have been inhibited, or depleted. The system, then recharges refilling with reactants (indicated by the decrease followed by an increase in 3b). Under appropriate conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, space velocity), thiols are sequentially produced and consumed, and depleted, creating oscillations in their concentration over time. This system does not directly mimic the reactions involved in metabolism (and is not intended to), but it is similar in its complexity to simple metabolic cycles, it is easy to study (by examining its oscillations), and it does not involve enzymatic catalysis (which could not have been present at the origins of metabolism).
We demonstrated that molecular networks could display fundamental properties of dynamic systems such as bistability and oscillations (Figure 2A). The thiol network is the first experimental example using organic molecules that might have existed on the early Earth."
This is from Harvard University Chemistry dept. There are also other plausible explanations. The main point in all of them is that life did not spring spontaneously from not-life in a single bound. There were multiple interim stages between what is quite definitely not-living matter, through quasi-living matter stages, to full-blown life. You know there are in-between stages, this is undeniable; viruses are one such: they exhibit some of the properties we call "life" but not all of them. Photosynthesis is another example; it occurs integrated into plants but also exists in non-living matter. These are hard evidence that there are in-between stages. You just have to imagine multiple in-between stages between lifeless chemicals and viruses, and between viruses and cells, and that is how the origin of life is explainable.
14 Jun 23
@moonbus saidThis shows how you don’t even grasp the discussion. Chemicals don’t error check that isn’t an assertion, (you speak without understanding) the material design driven by the informational instructions has in it error checking. When we write code it is not the letters we use that error checks, it is the arrangement of them that produces results.
@KellyJay
Perhaps you would explain in your own words what you think an error would look like in a chemical. Then we can talk about what error checking would look like, for a chemical.
We spend much of our lives learning truth tables so we can see errors. We learn in math what 1•1 = 1, through 9•9=81 so when we are dealing with life we know when things are true and false. Someone charged us for three items when we bought one knowing how to tell means everything.
In life if there wasn’t any error checking how or why would anything correct what is wrong? Why would blood clot when there is a cut, not just any ole time anywhere, or why would it stop once started?
You really don’t think these things through you just look for a place you think you can criticize and speak as if you understand.
14 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidSo you're 'not sure' that there are other world religions, and that they all have their own mythological version of how everything was created, which planet have you been living on? Let's give you one example, which is all you need; the Hindu religion has it that Brahma is the creator god, something which has every bit as much credibility as your own inherited creation story.
You can "pretend" what occurs in nature doesn't require a mind behind it, but that is what you must do, pretend. The guy is a world-class scientist in his field, the fact you call him a pretend scientist as you also are proclaiming mindlessness is responsible just show how you have turned off your brain in favor of your worldview. Not sure what other contenders you think t ...[text shortened]... ive about the beginning that takes into account everything we see in the universe, you just pretend.
So let me ask you the question again; by what scientific means has your world class scientist arrived at his belief that it was the Christian god and not Brahma who created the universe and everything in it?
15 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidYou brought up other religions, which if you were to pursue that discussion it should be on the Spiritual Forum not this one.
So you're 'not sure' that there are other world religions, and that they all have their own mythological version of how everything was created, which planet have you been living on? Let's give you one example, which is all you need; the Hindu religion has it that Brahma is the creator god, something which has every bit as much credibility as your own inherited creation ...[text shortened]... s belief that it was the Christian god and not Brahma who created the universe and everything in it?
The content has more to do with mindlessness versus mind than the Christian God, He happens to be a Christian as am I, but that doesn't change the nature of nature any more than if he and I were Atheists discussing our beliefs. It isn't the worldview on trial here, but can a mindless process produce all the specified functionally complex systems that are integrated? So far your focus is worldviews, not life and how it started, so it could do what it does, like moon, you just dodge the questions looking for some reason to accuse someone personally instead of actually producing reasons for your point of view.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121295
15 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidKellyJay
How, did that happen, explain the mechanisms that mindlessness employed. You make sweeping comments about how mindlessness did that with absolutely nothing to back them up! I guess if you have no intention of having to defend your undefendable views you can deny or make any claim you desire, truth, evidence, and reason have nothing to do with your stance.
What alternate hypothesis do you have for the origin of life other than what have been offered up in this thread?
15 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidAh yes, the old 'take it to Spirituality' dodge, don't you think that one's wearing a bit thin? I'm sure everyone here can see what you're doing, and one could argue that this whole thread should be in Spirituality, but you brought it to us here, so here is where we are discussing it.
You brought up other religions, which if you were to pursue that discussion it should be on the Spiritual Forum not this one.
The content has more to do with mindlessness versus mind than the Christian God, He happens to be a Christian as am I, but that doesn't change the nature of nature any more than if he and I were Atheists discussing our beliefs. It isn't the worldv ...[text shortened]... me reason to accuse someone personally instead of actually producing reasons for your point of view.
And of course, this is all about world view; if James Tour was an atheist he wouldn't be turning to his god to provide all the answers, would he? I repeat, pure science cannot be undertaken against a backdrop of 'god did it', which is a catch - all escape from seriously addressing and understanding natural processes. It's pretend science, it's a falsehood, based on unproven and unprovable mythology. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just stating facts.