Your guess is that it was abiogenesis. Fine. Mine is that it was pre-existing life arriving on rocks and comets. Face it, your guess is as good as mine.
So you beleive panspermia is the best option for where life on Earth originated from.
Why could you not have just stated that clearly many, many long winded, meandering, self absorbed, meaningless post ago?
I would have said 'fair enough'.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
That they were putting out oxygen is no indication of a much greater simplicity you postulate.
The lack of any complex multicellular organisms does indicate greater simplicity. Also, the presence of oxygen and the lack of fossils also demonstrates that life can exist without a direct fossil record.
It is actually only an indication of presence.
You did contest it, mockingly calling them "ghosts".
We are not talking about how modern species came together. The topic is the first ones to appear on earth and the relative complexity of their bits and pieces.
So what was the complexity of the first life? Did it have a ribonuclease protein like that described in the opening post? If we are not talking about how modern species came together then why are people using proteins from modern species to calcuate the odds of abiogenesis? Why are people using the complexity of modern organisms to argue against abiogenesis?
I am not saying that those who believe that life on earth originated through abiogenesis should stop doing their research in that direction. It's just that I see the insistence that this must have been the case by all means to be very foolish and hardly scientific.
I don't really see how abiogenesis research is limited to Earth. If panspermia is true then life originated somewhere through processes that would have been the same as those on Earth, or the same as on meteors/comets in our own solar system. The field of abiogenesis is really only trying to find possible routes of how life could originate, not how life could originate on Earth and Earth only.
I don't think it is that much of a stretch to suppose that life could have originated on an Earth-like planet elsewhere. Water makes an obvious medium in which abiogenesis would occur. Heat would make a very good source of energy to drive thermodynamically unfavorable reactions. Rocks and soils make for very good solid substrates for catalyzing reactions and collecting those products. So studying how life could originate on Earth is also a study on how life could originate on any Earth-like planet.
But most of all, this is not inert matter. Far from it. This is reactive matter. It chemically combines and recombines to create new and interesting molecules. Time and again you use very poor descripters of what you are talking about. You describe organisms who die as death avoiding machines. You describe reactive matter as inert matter. Why is that?
Whatever is the case none of it is any indication that the first proteins belonged to systems any simpler than a modern virus and its bacterial host. There is a bottom limit to living complexity. It has to be no simpler than what allows it to remember itself. What is exactly the simplest possible chemical and mechanical configuration that is that limit?
I'll find the exact words of Kelvin or Helmholtz and then I'll post them.
But why would you bother? Has there not been about 105 years' worth of scientific investigation, including that into things like relativity, in the time that both of those gents have been in the grave?
Sorry, Gyps, you might not be aware of that but in the meantime the relativity has been high-jacked by the bigbangism that restored back the naive idea of the universal calendar and is creationist geocentrism in disguise. So Kelvin's ideas may be far more advanced and reasonable in comparison to this pre-Copernican concept which is currently the monopoly consensus-nonsensus view in cosmology. The view is highly pernicious to science in general since it puts constraints on other disciplines such as biology.
Sorry, Gyps, you might not be aware of that but in the meantime the relativity has been high-jacked by the bigbangism that restored back the naive idea of the universal calendar and is creationist geocentrism in disguise.
This may possibly be the stupidest single sentence ever written.
Inadequate, let's face it. Ascribing an age to the existence as a whole is a silly fallacy. Minkowski and Einstein did not dream of committing such a stupid mistake. You, on the other hand, defend in a public forum the category error the bigbangism is founded upon. So who looks stupid, you or I? Why do you do that? You are a university prof or something and since all other profs around you do the same, you just can't do otherwise. Simple. Take the mirror and face it.
Panda's Thumby, bare assertions little impress the feline. Unless you want to join the dumb club you need to explain to the moggy what is so intelligent about attributing age to time and the universe. Come on, give it a try at least. What is the age of time is an idiotic question.. It is asking what is the length of a ruler. 13.7 billion years is a stupid answer to that stupid question. Not any science or philosophy. You do not have to be Einstein to understand that.