Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 256 of 305 (397135)
04-24-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by AZPaul3
04-24-2007 3:30 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
AZPaul3 writes:
We haven’t the complete knowledge, yet, but everything we do have reasonably points to a chemical process and appears to point here to this planet as the source of our terrestrial life.
If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now. What's holding us back? Federal funding? If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?
Oh, I know, conditions are different nowadays. But how would you know that if you don't know what those conditional requirements were (are)?
And the chemistry of some other event may be totally different from what may have happened here (different genetic code set, structure, different aminos or nucleotides if these are even used at all, etc.)
How would you know? What chemical principles support your opinion?
HM wrote:
you are the one who thinks genes are just collections of chemicals.
If you're thinking "digital code set" I have no objection. If you're thinking "essence of universal life force," well now we have a problem.
I am not a vitalist. I'd be very surprised if a "life force" is ever discovered. Something exotically chemical probably did happened, but it was (or is) still hidden from our view. When it is finally revealed I predict a paradigm shift in chemistry of major proportions.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2007 3:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 4:15 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 258 by kuresu, posted 04-24-2007 4:21 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2007 5:22 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 262 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2007 6:39 PM Fosdick has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 257 of 305 (397137)
04-24-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 4:11 PM


Why?
If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now.
Since you can't answer the other question, maybe you can answer this one.
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 4:11 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 7:49 PM jar has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 258 of 305 (397138)
04-24-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 4:11 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Oh, I know, conditions are different nowadays. But how would you know that if you don't know what those conditional requirements were (are)?
well, geology can tell us a heck of a lot about ancient conditions. such as the near lack of oxygen in the early atmosohere (leading to those red-banded rock formations made of iron--that's where the oxygen produced went). We don't need abiogenesis to tell us that conditions were once different. Geology does that itself (and related branches, such as paleoclimatology (not sure if that's what it's called, but it's they study of ancient climates) and paleobiology).
If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?
well, unless it's affecting things, you'd need a damn powerful microscope. Anywho, how would you tell the difference between what's already there and what's new?
If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now
well hell, plate tectonics is only a geological process. But you know, we didn't know what caused the plates to move until at least 60 years after Wegener developed his hypothesis. And this is something quite simple (when compared to chemical reactions, that is). And you know, we're still learning about it. Unless I'm mistaken, we're not quite positive what causes deep earthquakes (those with a focus below 50 kilometers). But it's part of plate tectonics.
Nice argument man. It's just incredulity on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 4:11 PM Fosdick has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 259 of 305 (397142)
04-24-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ringo
04-24-2007 2:31 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Why? What specifically is lacking in the known principles of chemistry?
We don't know yet - that's why we research
Certainly there is nothing lacking in the fundamentals, but there are certainly principles out there waiting to be discovered. The principle of early cell formation for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 04-24-2007 2:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 04-24-2007 5:32 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 260 of 305 (397145)
04-24-2007 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 4:11 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?
The earth is bio friendly, but it is not abiogenesis friendly right now. It is swarming with life, and any primitive life will be almost certainly less fit than the millions of highly evolved bacteria that will undoubtedly be all over the place in those woods. Organic matter is food for bacteria, and primitive life - even where it chemically possible to form in our current environment - has a massive biological barrier preventing its realization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 4:11 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 7:53 PM Modulous has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 261 of 305 (397147)
04-24-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Modulous
04-24-2007 5:16 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Modulous writes:
The principle of early cell formation for example.
That's a bit further down the road than abiogenesis, isn't it?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2007 5:16 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2007 3:05 PM ringo has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 262 of 305 (397155)
04-24-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 4:11 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now.
And this expectation is based upon...what? Our incomplete but improving knowledge? Of all the trillions of combinations and permutations why do you think we should have hit on the formula by now? Why not by next Thursday or some Thursday 23 years from now?
If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?
I suggest that if you looked in the right place at the right time you probably could. The chemistry has not changed. Do you really think that if some short-chain chemical replicator came into being in your back yard this afternoon you would know it? Would you really expect it to survive for the following few months without being some bugs dinner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 4:11 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 8:03 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 263 of 305 (397168)
04-24-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by jar
04-24-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Why?
jar asks:
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?
Yes, I would expect all the principles of abiogenesis should be known by now, especially if they're only chemical. But my reasons will probably not satisfy you. My expectation is intuitive, and somewhat scornful, drawing on my appreciation of other great accomplishments in chemistry and the chemists who brag about them. But the principles behind abiogenesis might not be all chemical, not entirely. There is something about those genes”those Good Fairies of Biological Fruitiness”that we don't know. If it weren't for those genes, I'd guess the chemists would have abiogenesis nailled by now. Only a guess, though. I wouldn't sell the farm over it.
Maybe I'm more impressed with the deep mystery of life than I ought to be. But, dang it, there must have been something in that ancient broth besides chemicals.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 4:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 7:57 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 264 of 305 (397169)
04-24-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Modulous
04-24-2007 5:22 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Mod wrote:
The earth is bio friendly, but it is not abiogenesis friendly right now. It is swarming with life, and any primitive life will be almost certainly less fit than the millions of highly evolved bacteria that will undoubtedly be all over the place in those woods. Organic matter is food for bacteria, and primitive life - even where it chemically possible to form in our current environment - has a massive biological barrier preventing its realization.
Yes, I know. It's a version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse. Only in this case it's "life ate my evidence."
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2007 5:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2007 2:58 PM Fosdick has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 265 of 305 (397170)
04-24-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Why?
You are right, I am seldom satisfied with attempts to change the subject and divert attention instead of answering the question.
The question is :
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?
So far all you have offered is your personal incredulity and sorry, but personal incredulity is unrelated to the question.
You said "If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now."
So once again:
The question is :
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 7:49 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 8:08 PM jar has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 266 of 305 (397171)
04-24-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by AZPaul3
04-24-2007 6:39 PM


Eating the evidence
AZPaul3 wrote:
Do you really think that if some short-chain chemical replicator came into being in your back yard this afternoon you would know it? Would you really expect it to survive for the following few months without being some bugs dinner?
Then, by your reasoning, abiogensis could never happen because life would simply eat itself to death. (After bug A eats bug B it starves to death, and the whole process has to start over.)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2007 6:39 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by kuresu, posted 04-24-2007 8:32 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 267 of 305 (397173)
04-24-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by jar
04-24-2007 7:57 PM


Re: Why?
jar wrote:
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?
Why would you expect me to have my expections approved by you?
”Hm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 7:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 8:16 PM Fosdick has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 305 (397175)
04-24-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 8:08 PM


Re: Why?
You said "If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now."
Them is the very words you used.
Now you can continue to try to change the subject as you have many times in this thread, move the goal posts or palm the pea, but them is your very words.
Those words beg a very simple question...
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 8:08 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:02 AM jar has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 269 of 305 (397177)
04-24-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 8:03 PM


Re: Eating the evidence
Then, by your reasoning, abiogensis could never happen because life would simply eat itself to death. (After bug A eats bug B it starves to death, and the whole process has to start over.)
um. no. that doesn't follow one bit from what AZPaul3 said.
why? many organisms synthesize their own food. and in abiogenesis, what we are looking for is self-replicators (and easily replicable). these means they aren't going to be eating other replicators just yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 8:03 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 270 of 305 (397279)
04-25-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
04-24-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Why?
jar wrote:
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?
Because chemists are so dang sure it was only a chemical thing. Because chemists claim abiogenesis as their own thing (see Ringo's post in Message 246:
Why do there have to be special "abiogenic principles"? What's wrong with the principles of chemistry?
jar, don't bother me anymore with this question. I can have any old expectation I like without having to get your approval for it. Maybe you and Ringo and other molecular moles here would like to explain why the principles of chemistry are ALL there is to know about abiogenesis. With claims like that you'd think they'd have it in spades by now. (Where can send my $5 check to purchase one of those nifty laptop abiogenesis kits?)
Bottom line: If you think abiogensis was only a chemical thing then the burden is on you to prove it. I can't prove that it wasn't, but I can prove that life itself is more than just a collection of chemicals. (Clue: think genes”pure, digital information.)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 04-24-2007 8:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2007 11:25 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 273 by jar, posted 04-25-2007 12:47 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 277 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2007 2:18 PM Fosdick has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024