A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said
Nothing is being invalidated, just ignored.

What data is being ignored?

@wildgrass said
What data is being ignored?

That we don't want to watch a 3 hour video.

@sonhouse said
That we don't want to watch a 3 hour video.

I have no idea what data you/others are referencing. However, everything Ive googled on the subject seems to have some religious angle, either for or against. Is abiogenesis a religious term? Is it possible to have a data-driven conversation about abiogenesis on this forum without magical powers?

@wildgrass said
I have no idea what data you/others are referencing. However, everything Ive googled on the subject seems to have some religious angle, either for or against. Is abiogenesis a religious term? Is it possible to have a data-driven conversation about abiogenesis on this forum without magical powers?

The deal is how life started on Earth. called OOL studies (origin of life). The video's are from real scientists who go over the present knowledge of OOL, where about 50 years ago a scientist filled a flask with I think some water and some minerals and zapped it with electricity and found some prebiotic material. Abiogenesis means life starting without occurring naturally. It means against what scientists believe is the way life started which is mud to humans or some such. The religious folk, even though they are scientists present the present level of science of OOL. They come to a conclusion like Bill Barr and the Mueller probe, nothing here folks, go back to your homes.
They think they are cool with ool, so to speak. Because humans are WAY to stupid to EVER know how life started on Earth and because science will NEVER be able to show that, life on Earth HAD to be kickstarted by a god.
That is the bottom line, ignoring the fact that science advances and today is still in kindergarten but maybe in a hundred years or 200, whatever, we most likely will figure out how life comes about not needing a god to do it.

Then Kelly pulls the 'faith' card, I must have religious level faith in science therefore I am ALREADY religious.
We go round and round that point also.

@sonhouse said
That we don't want to watch a 3 hour video.

I asked you to watch 5 minutes of the first one! I actually don’t think you have the nerve to do that and give an non-prejudice report on the content. If you cannot even do that I don’t give a rats a$$ what excuse you have.

@wildgrass said
I have no idea what data you/others are referencing. However, everything Ive googled on the subject seems to have some religious angle, either for or against. Is abiogenesis a religious term? Is it possible to have a data-driven conversation about abiogenesis on this forum without magical powers?

Watch the first 5 minutes of the first one and as soon as you see religion stop! The point is abiogenesis is the non-living cause of life, to suggest anything one way or the other gives everyone pause.

@kellyjay said
Well, they are some of the many points science cannot explain. It cannot explain where everything came from, it cannot explain how life got started and so on. Yet you think time will tell, that is your equivalent to "God did it", you have FAITH believing these issues will be explained in time.

Of the two I am thinking the life issue is the hardest, even though the ...[text shortened]... k to the science if you can, Chemist should know a little about their field in science do you think?

I never said they didn't know the science. I said their conclusions were life could not happen without intervention of some kind. I did watch the first video and he makes points but he doesn't go much into the various conditions we find at the bottom of the ocean, hydrothermal vents which is an energy source much longer lasting than the Miller-Urea experiment that zapped the reducing atmosphere for a while.
Ocean vents put out long lasting (Million year long lasting) heat source and we already see a rapid evolution of life there, a virtual city of life.
Another issue is, supposing life could never have developed naturally, it could have happened on Earth by seeding from some other planet, like Mars which is known to shoot meteors to Earth and if there were bacteria surviving that trip it could have jump started life here.
Of course that begs the question where did MARS life come from, which also could have been a bacteria laden asteroid from maybe interstellar origins.
A third possibility is organic clouds are known to inhabit the universe, whereas that first dude says there was not enough time because up to the first billion years or so it was way too hot on Earth for life to have formed but Earth and the whole solar system could have plowed through organic laden interstellar clouds which would cut through a lot of chemical failures early on, seeding more advanced probiotics.
It seems to me once you reach a certain level of these advanced prebiotics, the rest follows quickly, maybe a million years till some kind of membrane is formed and then stuff entering inside that membrane and much lower probability reactions taking place.
That kind of possibility is never mentioned by these dudes which is why I say science of life origins is still in kindergarten and much more will be learned.

@sonhouse said
The deal is how life started on Earth. called OOL studies (origin of life). The video's are from real scientists who go over the present knowledge of OOL, where about 50 years ago a scientist filled a flask with I think some water and some minerals and zapped it with electricity and found some prebiotic material. Abiogenesis means life starting without occurring naturally. I ...[text shortened]... ous level faith in science therefore I am ALREADY religious.
We go round and round that point also.

Yeah. Similar arguments are used to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change data. If scientists can't replicate the exact conditions in the lab, they must not know what they're talking about. Nevermind that the earth is huge and complex and unique and billions of years old. We've only been sentient for ~ 1 million.

I disagree with you a little bit in that I don't think we'll ever know life's origins with any certainty. "Metabolism-first" (where complex molecules may have been concentrated in thermal pools) makes some sense, but lacks a lot of details. Essentially, the first cell was really really large, and then slowly shrunk as complexity increased. But RNA-first could have happened too, with metabolism as a secondary event. Conceivably, both could be recreated in a lab setting at some point. Panspermia moves the tipping point to another planet, but doesn't change any of the problems. Ultimately, we will never have a scientifically-satisfying answer to where we came from.

The conflation of abiogenesis with evolution is what bothers me the most. What part of evolutionary theory requires abiogenesis?

@kellyjay said
Watch the first 5 minutes of the first one and as soon as you see religion stop! The point is abiogenesis is the non-living cause of life, to suggest anything one way or the other gives everyone pause.

Science has no other way to approach the question. You can suggest anything you want.

@wildgrass said
Yeah. Similar arguments are used to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change data. If scientists can't replicate the exact conditions in the lab, they must not know what they're talking about. Nevermind that the earth is huge and complex and unique and billions of years old. We've only been sentient for ~ 1 million.

I disagree with you a little bit in that I don't think we' ...[text shortened]... s with evolution is what bothers me the most. What part of evolutionary theory requires abiogenesis?

"The conflation of abiogenesis with evolution is what bothers me the most. What part of evolutionary theory requires abiogenesis?"

The beginning is either through natural process or not, if not what does that say about the process?

@sonhouse said
I never said they didn't know the science. I said their conclusions were life could not happen without intervention of some kind. I did watch the first video and he makes points but he doesn't go much into the various conditions we find at the bottom of the ocean, hydrothermal vents which is an energy source much longer lasting than the Miller-Urea experiment that zapped th ...[text shortened]... s which is why I say science of life origins is still in kindergarten and much more will be learned.

Thank you for watching it.

You are again placing faith above science in that you are putting your hope into what may happen or be discovered over what testing and results show today. That could go on forever without resolution if it didn't happen the way you think it possibly could.

The presentation pointed out that it wasn't that there wasn't enough time, it was that the processes in play don't have a stop sequence in the chemical reactions, or a means to make the reactions occur where they were required to be, to produce what was needed. Time wasn't going to change anything, The end results were going to be something other that what was needed, time didn't matter.

If you recall during the first discussion the comet and the Miller-Urea experiment both yielded the same results, with one a few days old, the other believed to be millions of years old. More time didn't alter anything they both yielded the same result in near identical quantities.

@kellyjay said
Thank you for watching it.

You are again placing faith above science in that you are putting your hope into what may happen or be discovered over what testing and results show today. That could go on forever without resolution if it didn't happen the way you think it possibly could.

The presentation pointed out that it wasn't that there wasn't enough time, it was that ...[text shortened]... old. More time didn't alter anything they both yielded the same result in near identical quantities.

They neither one talk about interstellar clouds which have been proven to contain prebiotic material, complex molecules that happens in space from energy given by local stars.
That is not faith. That is fact. That is some of what I talk about when I say in the future we WILL know more about OOL. Maybe not enough in the near future to suss it all out but each decade makes a new notch in that effort. That also is a fact not faith.

@sonhouse said
They neither one talk about interstellar clouds which have been proven to contain prebiotic material, complex molecules that happens in space from energy given by local stars.
That is not faith. That is fact. That is some of what I talk about when I say in the future we WILL know more about OOL. Maybe not enough in the near future to suss it all out but each decade makes a new notch in that effort. That also is a fact not faith.

So you think the answers are not on the earth but outer space? The outer space explanation, is that evidence, or faith based for you?

@kellyjay said
So you think the answers are not on the earth but outer space? The outer space explanation, is that evidence, or faith based for you?

What part of already discovered complex prebiotic molecules in interstellar clouds do you not understand?
I NEVER said that is THE answer. I SAID that is one line of evidence already shown.
We know, for instance, the solar system plowed through one such cloud and had an encounter with a relatively close supernova.
Every kind of energy comes off such a beast and that energy is one of the paths that make for more complex molecules.
Which is why I say in the future we will know more about that area of science. That is based on what we already know and that is NOT faith, as much as you wish to shove that word into my world view.
That view of mine is due to the fact that scientists are very curious animals. When something new is shown like complex molecules in space, those scientists set their mind on seeing what else there is to learn. That is a fact, that is how science works. That is NOT faith, that is professional curiosity. That is where new discoveries come from, not from reading the bible.

Complex molecules in interstellar clouds covers one argument of your dudes:
Whereas they say there was a relatively short time for life to develop, like from 700 million years after Earth formed to maybe a hundred million years later so a shortish time for life to come from mud.
Interstellar clouds short circuit that bit because they have been around for nearly the entire age of the universe, ten billion, 12 billion, 13 billion years.
Besides that, the clouds that formed from nebulae of blown up stars, that is the stuff that made our entire solar system.
Because the interstellar clouds ARE our solar system processed, the entire solar system was seeded with prebiotic molecules and THAT fact destroys one of their chief arguments.

Their arguments never take that into play because they are not interdiscipline scientests, they have their respective field and they stick to it and don't see the bigger picture.

When you go interdisciplinary you work with astrophysicists, cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists and so forth, all working for the same end, OOL.

So your dudes are arguing from a very narrow POV, thus clearly implying ONLY god could make life.

We don't find much in the way of prebiotics in our solar system space because gravity worked on small density gradients slowly making planets and moons and asteroids and such, that clears out 99.9999% of stuff of the cloud that made our solar system so the space between planets now are nearly empty of the early cloud that made our solar system. All of the stuff of stars are now our planets and moons and asteroids and comets and the sun itself.
So OOL could have begun on ALL the planets of our solar system and that opens the possibility life first formed on Mars and maybe even Venus and when they get whacked with asteroids, some of that material will be shared throughout the solar system including some of that stuff whacking Earth and thus seeding the stuff of life directly to our planet. That there are actually meteorites coming from other planets is not speculation, we KNOW stuff from Mars made it to Earth BECAUSE we have no direct chemical makeup of Mars via our rovers and such and some meteorites match that makeup so we KNOW they came from Mars.

There is very strong evidence there are deep deep oceans, 30, 40 MILES deep oceans on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn and like Enceladus squirting spewing streams of water way into space and there are plans afoot to get a probe there to sample that water and see if there are complex molecules or even life forms that were under the vast Enceladus ocean.
If THAT happens and I readily admit it may be a total blind alley but if we do find life there, that will put the whole OOL into a new light, PAN OOL, where life can show up anywhere there are conditions halfway decent for life.

Thinking like that says to me life may exist in trillions of planets around the universe not just this speck of dust that we call Earth.

That is just an observation NOT faith.

@sonhouse said
What part of already discovered complex prebiotic molecules in interstellar clouds do you not understand?
I NEVER said that is THE answer. I SAID that is one line of evidence already shown.
We know, for instance, the solar system plowed through one such cloud and had an encounter with a relatively close supernova.
Every kind of energy comes off such a beast and that ene ...[text shortened]... e universe not just this speck of dust that we call Earth.

That is just an observation NOT faith.

If you actually accept that as a possible explanation you are putting faith into it. Faith is not blind it’s something we rely on, an unfaithful husband or wife are people trusted and fail, while a faithful one is relied upon.