Okay, I went to the link you provided and I have to admit, I had to look up "self-polymerize" - this stuff is really slow reading for me. I'll have to look at it a few times before I am gonna get it. But I think the main gist is that we are talking about chemicals getting together, forming into a very basic cell-like structure, ... The attached reading material is somewhat difficult as well and has a lot of "out of my league" stuff.
No problem, take your time and check all you want to, that is how the open-minded skeptic operates.
Yes, this is one possibility for the way cells formed, and it can be observed in the lab as well, so it is not just a hypothetical development.
... and then picking and choosing this and that until they achieve life-form? ...
Or just lots of trial and error "tests" with various chemical combinations until one occurs that takes off, that is the hypothesis.
I feel the need to ask if a life-form has been developed in a lab? or, is the current state of development still chemical compounds? No insult intended I just want to know!
No life form has been developed in the lab yet, and the current state is still chemical evolution - where we have replicating molecules that show some mutation and selection.
Of course this gets into the question of "what is life" -- and that is a whole nother ball or worms.
Well, I find that fascinating. It's actually very cool and I don't see why anyone is upset on either side of the fence, even though I have read the various "evolution versus creation" arguments. Maybe that fence needs to be taken down. Okay, I am gonna digest this and think up some more questions, I thank you much! And please note, I really don't have a problem if someone does get to the creating life point. Wouldn't that be a huge step! The scriptures do not say that God will not allow man to create life (nor that evolution doesn't happen) and with all that has happened so far who knows?
We can watch liposomes dividing in a laboratory; we know it happens. If, as I suspect, you have a magic-based hypothesis, I should like you to produce equally strong evidence for the occurrence of magic. Otherwise I shall prefer the reality
Do you label Szostak's video and the article by Ricardo and Szostak " life on earth" Scientific America sept. 2009 a:
Theory? Hypothesis? Speculation? Wishful thinking? Magic based hypothesis?
Which, curiously, is all we can say at this time. Nobody is claiming that this is what happened, only that it is one possibility, one that works with known science and natural processes.
I would ask the same question I asked Dr. Adequate. Do you consider the video and the article by Szostak & Ricardo "Life on Earth" in Scientific America Sept. 2009:
A theory? A hypothesis? Speculation? Wishful thinking?
Do you consider the video and the article by Szostak & Ricardo "Life on Earth" in Scientific America Sept. 2009:
A theory? A hypothesis? Speculation? Wishful thinking?
I would say that it is a scientific hypothesis for one way life may have begun on earth. There are others.
We don't have any direct evidence for how life began 3.5 billion years ago on earth, so we may never know: the oldest fossil bearing rocks already show simple life forms existing, so we don't know when it really began or what came before, except that it occurred some time after the formation of the earth (unless it came from space), some 4.55 billion years ago. That doesn't give us much to work with.
quote:Stromatolites are not only Earth's oldest of fossils, but are intriguing in that they are our singular visual portal (except for phylogenetic determination of conserved nucleic acid sequences and some subtle molecular fossils) into deep time on earth, the emergence of life, and the evolving of the beautiful forms of life of modern time. A small piece of stromatolites encodes biological activity perhaps spanning thousands of years.
I would say that it is a scientific theory for how life can begin from chemicals and natural reactions.
The difference is that theory is supported by experimentation and the evaluation of the evidence from this and similar studies: it has been tested, while the actual origin of life is not.
The development of the theory for how life can begin is an integral part to the formation of the hypothesis for how life did begin, as it provides the evidentiary basis to make the hypothesis.
Do you label Szostak's video and the article by Ricardo and Szostak " life on earth" Scientific America sept. 2009 a:
Theory? Hypothesis? Speculation? Wishful thinking? Magic based hypothesis?
I can't access the article. The video presents a non-magical hypothesis as to the way in which abiogenesis took place and some facts about biochemistry that support its plausibility.
As no-one has observed magical processes in biology, this in my judgment makes the hypothesis superior to magic-based hypotheses.
As no-one has observed magical processes in biology, this in my judgment makes the hypothesis superior to magic-based hypotheses.
If that criticism sounds like "I don't believe in magic," then you have a serious cognitive deficiency preventing meaningful participation in such a topic.
Observation, however, is an argument. I have never seen magic any more than I have seen a pig with wings. Unless and until I do, the scientific method constrains me to disbelieve in both.
An argument from incredulity would be saying that magic is too ridiculous to be true. Whereas what I say is that it is too unevidenced to be plausible. Like winged pigs.
An argument from incredulity would be saying that magic is too ridiculous to be true. Whereas what I say is that it is too unevidenced to be plausible. Like winged pigs.
Do you also mean like the evolution of the eye through random mutations? You haven't actually seen that happen have you?
I don't know about the video but the Sci. Am. article makes it pretty clear that what they are doing is presenting a brief synthesis of the most current research in several fields, concerned with the origins of life, as a hypothetical scenario.
Szostak and Ricardo writes:
The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be forever lost to science. But research can at least help us understand what is possible.
...
We may never know the exact details of early evolution, but here is a plausible sequence of some of the major events that led from the first protocell to DNA-based cells such as bacteria.
The article is littered with possiblys, coulds, mights and mays, all caveats suggesting the hypothetical nature of the scenario.
There is some wishful thinking in there ...
If we assume for the moment that the gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of life's origin will someday be filled
... but on the whole everything they present has solid experimental evidence supporting it as a plausible mechanism, not necessarily what actually happened. Without a time machine that may be the best we can hope for.
If we assume for the moment that the gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of life's origin will someday be filled
... but on the whole everything they present has solid experimental evidence supporting it as a plausible mechanism, not necessarily what actually happened. Without a time machine that may be the best we can hope for.
TTFN,
Thanks Wounded King. I have a lot reading to do to even try and understand the basics of this thread.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)