|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:16:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| I personally think that hydrothermal vents will be the most fruitful avenue of research into abiogenesis. H2 seeping up from the seafloor supply reduction potential. A core metabolic pathway found in acetogens can emerge at fairly high conentrations. The vents also form an abundant supply of microscopic compartments that certainly alleviate the "concentration problem". |
If I remember properly, most scientists were leaning away from this and towards life being first created in a "little warm pond". I believe the main reason was the the environment was too small and harsh. As soon as you get even a small distance away from the vents, the environment becomes so harsh so rapidly it is hard to imagine anything primitive (back when life was young) being able to survive the change.
|
I like those vents as potential abiogenesis sites, too. Water, and a rich concentration of chemical energy sources, no need for photosynthesis or free oxygen. The early earth may have been blanketed with thick clouds allowing hardly any solar energy to reach the surface, and there was little or no free oxygen. Life might have been entirely confined to those vents and their surrounds for quite a long time.
I can imagine some microbes slowly mutating and establishing themselves in radically different niches, just a few millimeters further from the vent than their competitors.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:17:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome, I find the weird juxtaposition of your irrational statement, over the wise comments of Bertrand Russell, to be oddly both hilarious and at the same time highly offensive: I am pretty sure that all science has shown to this point that non living matter can not become living matter.
Is there any peer reviewed science that shows life coming from non life?
My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
Russell's quote demolishes the nonsense you posted above it. It utterly contradicts it.
In fact, I now am convinced that you quote Lord Russell in your sig merely for protective coloration in this skeptics' forum. Everything you say reeks of and echoes of woo-woo and Christian fundamentalist talking points, yet you continually deny this. I believe you feel that skeptics are a Satanic breed, and so you feel justified in your pious fraud.
I am convinced you are a willfully ignorant, lying troll, and are flying false colors.
|
The Russell quote is apropos. We have two hypothesis with the same concrete evidence (i.e. life is exists).
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:20:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Studies have shown that large new protein chains can be created not only by the "primordial soup" but by the high temperature and pressures of a meteorite impact, which were oh so common back in the first billion years of the planet. I dont find it a strecth of the imagination that a self-replicating protein could be created in this manner, considering the outragous alternative.
|
This changing and combining from one to another happens in nature all the time. The goals of these experiments was to create life; they could not.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:22:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life. |
The difference is that one argument is within science and the other is not. It is not true that life being created by god is on an equal footing with abiogenesis. Science is naturalistic.
God is excluded from science for the same reason that the tooth fairy is excluded from science. It lacks evidence.
Particular theories of abiogenesis are certainly quite speculative at the moment but however it happened life did arise on earth. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how that occurred or could have occurred.
|
If science concludes that life can not form outside of life than some other life must be considered.
Abiogenesis is not a theory it is a hypothesis.
What is the evidence of abiogenesis? It seems little more than life is here and it must have come from somewhere.
|
Didn't open this link, did you? This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller-Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.
K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953 [4]. Wilde only used voltages up to 600 V on a binary mixture of CO2 and water in a flow system. He only observed small amounts of CO2 reduction to CO and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds.
More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, Calif. were similar to those performed by Miller. However Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions carbon dioxide and nitrogen create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen. [5]
In 2006 another experiment showed that a thick organic haze might have blanketed Early Earth [6] . An organic haze can form over a wide range of methane and carbon dioxide concentrations, believed to be present in the atmosphere of Early Earth. After forming, these organic molecules would have floated down all over the Earth, allowing life to flourish globally [7].
|
Yes, a mere hypothesis. But it's better and more reliable than a book of conjectures.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:25:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life. |
Provide evidence that God exists.
After all, you (and everyone else) can obviously provide evidence that both living and non-living things exist. The only thing missing is the mechanism(s) of abiogenesis. There are active research programs in place and working on the subject.
With Genesis, on the other hand, we've got the living things, but we don't have any evidence for God or for the magical "poof." There are no active research programs examining this question.
Of course, a belief that God poofed life into existence doesn't make one insane or stupid (nice strawman of yours, Jerome). It just makes one gullible or non-skeptical. Just as a belief regarding abiogenesis would.
Nobody here actually believes in any particular abiogenesis scenario, because none of them has been completely tested. Hell, few of the hypotheses currently in play even reach the level of "plausible." But that certainly doesn't make "Goddidit" a viable alternative.
|
Well thought out.
It is not a strawman as this thread was started based on the assertion that anyone that believes in God is either insane or stupid.
You are echoing my point; the question is in dispute.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The Miller-Urey experiment was not the be-all/end-all of abiogenesis research, but it did demonstrate how some part of the process could have happened. | The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago [1] [2] [3]. |
I myself think that, given the right conditions, life will arise and some magic elf or other will have nothing to do with it. I think that, probably beyond my lifetime, this will be proven both by observation of other planets and in the laboratory.
|
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote58
"Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at La Jolla, explained the modern outlook on this question by noting that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
And yet, he added, "We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
I found the quote and the explanation interesting.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:37:36 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | If science concludes that life can not form outside of life than some other life must be considered. |
Science has certainly not so concluded. If, for the sake of argument, it ever did, what sort of "other life" are you babbling about?| Abiogenesis is not a theory it is a hypothesis. |
No, abiogenesis is the field of study. As such, it is no more a hypothesis or theory than is "economics." Within this field are several hypotheses. None of them (at least so far) rise to the level of a "theory."| What is the evidence of abiogenesis? It seems little more than life is here and it must have come from somewhere. |
The very existence of life requires some mechanism of abiogenesis (life coming from non-life). Positing that a God made life on earth only brings up the question of how He or His distant ancestors came to life from non-life.
If one throws in a magical creating God, one only complicates the pedigree of abiogenesis. It doesn't eliminate the need for it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/05/2007 20:11:58 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:37:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You have chosen to believe one hypothesis over another. There is nothing wrong in that. The problem is when you believe that those that disagree are either insane or stupid. |
How does "goddidit" constitute a hypothesis?
|
Hypothesis:a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
Yep, "goditit" fits the definition.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:48:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If science concludes that life can not form outside of life than some other life must be considered. |
A good thing then, that science never concluded such a thing.
| Abiogenesis is not a theory it is a hypothesis. |
And "goddidit" is not even a hypothesis. It's a conjecture, somewhere between crack-pot dream and wishful thinking.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:52:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is not a strawman as this thread was started based on the assertion that anyone that believes in God is either insane or stupid.
|
That's patently false. You are not allowed to revise history.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 19:56:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Studies have shown that large new protein chains can be created not only by the "primordial soup" but by the high temperature and pressures of a meteorite impact, which were oh so common back in the first billion years of the planet. I dont find it a strecth of the imagination that a self-replicating protein could be created in this manner, considering the outragous alternative.
|
This changing and combining from one to another happens in nature all the time. The goals of these experiments was to create life; they could not. |
I don't believe you! Cite those experiments stating that the purpose of them were to create life. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:02:23 [Permalink]
|
More argumentum ad dictionarium from Jerome... how unsuprising.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:20:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is not a strawman as this thread was started based on the assertion that anyone that believes in God is either insane or stupid.
|
That's patently false. You are not allowed to revise history.
|
Opps, wrong again
Quoting Dude:
trollboy said:
Much in the same way that claiming that someone who believes in God is either insane or stupid.
People who believe something to be true with no evidence are, typically, considered stupid and insane. |
That was the start, if you would like more information as to how this topic began I would propose you read the "Put Away the Flags" thread in the politics section.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:22:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
If I remember properly, most scientists were leaning away from this and towards life being first created in a "little warm pond". I believe the main reason was the the environment was too small and harsh. As soon as you get even a small distance away from the vents, the environment becomes so harsh so rapidly it is hard to imagine anything primitive (back when life was young) being able to survive the change.
|
It is still being actively pursued and mentioned in the literature (1,2). (Ref 2 is downloadable for free). The biggest problem with the "warm little pond" scenario is that it is difficult keeping such a system away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Without an active push or pull, a mix of chemicals is most likely just going to sit there. Not to mention that in a "pond setting", chemicals will simply diffuse away before they have a chance to interact further (i.e. the concentration problem). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Abiogenesis
