Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 334
#181
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@MagicAintReal
No spontaneous generation is an antiquated association with abiogenesis.
You can run from the implication of your failed theory, but if you were debating me, you would correct that bogus definition before we started. Grugore may be young, or just too trusting, but as I said, thanks. I'll watch.

#182
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stronn
You seem to have a small problem with obsession and compulsion, I hope I won't have to block you.

I already have two stalkers and need no more.

#183
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
What is your preferred hypothetical alternative to abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is, after all, merely a hypothesis.

#184
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You've shown your hand already man, it's a little late to pretend to be unbiased and objective.

Your question is bogus. Do you have a "alternative" to Santa Clause? Do you have a "alternative" to blood letting?

Why would anyone need an "alternative" to abiogenesis?

Science doesn't recommend it. It has no evidence. Why is it even among the options? 

What is your preferred hypothetical....
This is science, not a supermarket. It isn't by choice. It's not what you prefer. It is where science leads. We follow.

Life comes from life. That is science. That is fact.
#185
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Life comes from life - reductio ad infinitum.

We know for a fact that life as we know it could not have existed prior to the development of the first stars.


#186
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Life comes from life - reductio ad infinitum.
Only if we pre-assume your view of reality is correct.

We know for a fact that life as we know it could not have existed prior to the development of the first stars.
A fact? When we did the famous slit experiment we knew for a fact that photons were discreet particles. Yet they went through both slits. Did we throw out the idea that photons were particles? No. There was an explanation.

The fact is that science points to life from life. There is an explanation. We do not abandon hundreds of years of science because we currently don't have an answer.

No matter what else we discover, the facts are that science shows that life comes from life. We don't get all the truth at once. We discover it a step at a time.
#187
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Science is always a "best guess based on current data".

To expand our understanding of the world around us, we explore hypotheses.

Based on our current science, the cosmos was formed 13.77 billion years ago.

13.77 billion years ago, the requisite conditions to support life as we know it did not exist.

Life exists today.

We are left to conclude that life began at some point between now and 13.77 billion years ago.

Exactly how the first life came into being is still being explored.

Abiogenesis is a reasonable hypothetical avenue to pursue.
#188
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
What is your preferred hypothetical alternative to abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is, after all, merely a hypothesis.
Although i think creationism is bogus, i don't think intelligent design is as bogus. ID would even stay consistent with life coming from life. The question would be what kind of platform would best describe how ID could happen. Real quick though... creationism is manifesting 'things' through thought, will, basically popping them into existence without any real formula. ID i consider would have a formula through manipulating either particles or the laws of physics to manifest 'things.' Therefore, i find ID to be much more probable than creationism since you are right... nothing just pops into existence. However, there is proof of ID as humans do create 'things' intelligently. 

Imho, if it is possible to create, i don't see why there cannot be forces beyond us that can also create. My favorite ID platform is that of what most eastern philosophies believe in. "Oneness" or "Non-dualism." That everything is from one mind. Imagine this mind is a sea of sand... i know you have a problem with the word infinite, but lets say i mean endless when i say it... infinite sand. In this sand everything exists. For it to actualize, you create a sandcastle. But when that sandcastle is gone, it becomes one again with the infinite sand. I believe an infinite consciousness ("source") of this analogy is possible. We would simply all be characters and 'things' that already exist in this source. We manifest into the physical to experience. Just as a sandcastle would have to be created to be observed and experience as it is. So i believe "life" comes from this source. 

Since this source is also infinitely intelligent, the design or ID comes in the form that either it can create you one atom of a time... or my next favorite is that we have individualized within this source... therefore, you create you. You decide to manifest as whatever character you will play. An experience to be had just like the next movie you decide to watch. 

I find this to be attractive bc it also makes sense out of evolution... actually, it answers almost every question you can throw at someone with a metaphysical belief. You would manifest into this life, but what is life? It is a bunch of random experiences. Therefore, it needs to evolve to allow other characters to play their experience (movie of sorts). 

So, i don't think ID should be easily discounted. And when i said it is the source to life... i mean it is what brought life here. Once it is here, there is no other proof of it other than what that life does. The proof of it to me is that we are also conscious, living experiences, can create, and imagine beyond the future. Since that is obviously proven and possible... i don't see why something greater than us can't be the source of it. Once it manifests life... then that life takes off. At that point it will conform with evolution and so forth. The spark however, or bringing life here, i believe comes from a higher life form.  
#189
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
In order for "intelligent design" to be considered "scientific" it must be testable (falsifiable).

Can you conceive of any possible way (even in your wildest imagination) to scientifically test "intelligent design"?

Any way you slice this "intelligent design" pie, you still end up with a reductio ad infinitum.

If an "intelligence" created the first "life", how was that "intelligence" created (isn't it also alive)?

Who is the "mother of god"?
#190
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Abiogenesis is a reasonable hypothetical avenue to pursue
No it isn't. Why would it be? Science doesn't recommend it. There is no evidence for it. Why is it reasonable? Why is it even an avenue?

Because you think the alternative lets God in, and you are terrified of God. That isn't science, that's irrational fear.
#191
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Can you conceive of any possible way (even in your wildest imagination) to scientifically test "intelligent design"?

Can you conceive of any possible way (even in your wildest imagination) to scientifically test "abiogenesis"?


#192
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
In order for "intelligent design" to be considered "scientific" it must be testable (falsifiable).

Can you conceive of any possible way (even in your wildest imagination) to scientifically test "intelligent design"?
If you follow the implications of such a platform, one thing that would be possible in this platform is reincarnation. I'll just skip ahead and tell you instead of explain why. If reincarnation is true, this is one thing that we might be able to test. I say might bc people aren't suppose to know prior experiences bc it would mess with your current experience. Plus, i think some prior experiences of people go into fantasy. However, i believe there are some people, interestingly religious people, that would reincarnate into this life most often. If your interested in why i can explain. So, the people that may have passed lives may be able to bring it up. In eastern tradition, people that are experts in meditation say that they can go a level deeper beyond their selves here. It takes years however. So, if we were to test this. We would have to get willing participants that will put in 5 to 10 years of hard meditating to try and go deeper into their conscious. And through the journey we can test it and observe them. And ultimately, we can see if they can bring up past live memories that would be good enough to qualify as evidence. I would say there already are some examples of past live memories... but nothing scientific and observed in a scientific setting. So... maybe this is one thing we can do. The problem with science is that they have just conceded consciousness at this point. I can't think of too many that are really trying to test our minds. We only look at it from the outside, never test it from the inside. 

Any way you slice this "intelligent design" pie, you still end up with a reductio ad infinitum.

If an "intelligence" created the first "life", how was that "intelligence" created (isn't it also alive)?

Who is the "mother of god"?
There are a couple ways but they are all leaps. One way could be that it's just always been. Another way could be that it woke up. First there was nothing, and then there was something. All this mind would have to do is become conscious. Another way is that everything in this universe has always existed in every universe (if there's more). And, from a certain mix of particles an entire universe became conscious. This is a Boltzmann Brain idea. My favorite is the second. It's sorta like virtual particles. One minute its not there, then it is (becomes conscious / alive). But ultimately, it could be a mixture of all of the above. Space, time, energy, etc.. have always been. They arranged and from just them came a mind that woke up. The cause being time and space giving it a platform to manifest. Which way it happens i can't be sure... but, i can still conceive how it can happen, and i don't see the problem ad infinitum in a eternal mind manifesting. Actually... i think possibly, the only thing that can break many of the infinite paradoxes and problems is an 'eternal' incorporeal mind and or everything being a eternal consciousness.  

#193
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
What do you mean by "science doesn't recommend it"?


And how is "god" a more scientific hypothesis?

Do you imagine that reasonable people are terrified of other things that have no scientific evidence?

Do you imagine that reasonable people are terrified of the loch ness monster, space aliens, big foot, trolls, and ghosts?

Do you imagine that human terror itself is considered serious scientific evidence?

#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
First there was nothing, and then there was something. All this mind would have to do is become conscious.
That still sounds like life from non-life.

I'm even willing to grant you hypothetical scientific evidence of reincarnation.

How does hypothetical scientific evidence of reincarnation "prove" an "intelligent designer"?

But the real problem, even if, for the sake of argument, I grant you hypothetical scientific evidence of an "intelligent designer", still remains.

Where did this "intelligent designer" come from?

Every possible answer is less coherent than, amino acids formed chains, which formed proteins, which formed cells, which formed primitive life forms.


#195
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Can you conceive of any possible way (even in your wildest imagination) to scientifically test "abiogenesis"?

It is currently being tested, in laboratories.




Rome wasn't built in a day.
#196
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
What do you mean by "science doesn't recommend it"?
There is no scientific evidence for it whatsoever.

And how is "god" a more scientific hypothesis?
I don't know. Perhaps you should ask the person suggesting God.

Do you imagine that reasonable people are terrified of other things that have no scientific evidence?
You aren't reasonable if your adoption of abiogenesis is not due to science. Not all other things lead to God in your estimation.

Do you imagine that reasonable people are terrified of the loch ness monster, space aliens, big foot, trolls, and ghosts?
If they imagined it would lead to something they feared, yes.

There is a reason you have been the only one here to mention God.

Do you imagine that human terror itself is considered serious scientific evidence?
I haven't a clue what "serious scientific evidence" is to you, or why you would think someone is offering it as "evidence" (evidence for what?) But I know you aren't evoking God because of science. You cling to a bankrupt, evidence-less theory because you are terrified it means the alternative is God.

Why you think so a anyone's guess, but people fear what they fear.
#197
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
It is currently being tested, in laboratories.
"It"?

That is a lie and you know it. No one is testing abiogenesis because there are no instances of abiogenesis anywhere.

Miller Urey and subsequent experiments not only failed to support abiogenesis, but supported life from life.
#198
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Every possible answer is less coherent than, amino acids formed chains, which formed proteins, which formed cells, which formed primitive life forms.
Why does this only have to be possible here? And why does this only have to be possible with these specific forces? Why can't there be an entire universe that is conscious? 

Plus, i can't say any of that is wrong either... bc i believe that is, in one form or another, exactly how it happened. However... life, human consciousness, being real... has some crazy implications in what seems like an infinite platform... It just seems impossible to me that there isn't other forms of consciousness / intelligence.  

That still sounds like life from non-life.
Yes. But we are physical life. This source consciousness wouldn't be physical. It technically can even be construed as non-life. For i don't think it's living (it's kinda both). Everything exists in it... therefore, everything is simultaneously known. Your beginning, your present, your end... all at the same time times infinite other characters and things. It's not living really... living is what we are doing here... and i would call living life. So what we come from is both life and non-life.  

How does hypothetical scientific evidence of reincarnation "prove" an "intelligent designer"?
It would be a part of evidence. I don't think we will ever truly prove this platform. How can we? We are talking about finite entities (us) proving a infinite entity (source of everything) ... that is quite the entity if it's true. All we can do is piece together evidence to see what we can get to. All i'm saying is we haven't even begun looking deeper out the human mind. We look at it from the outside and not inward. We know what it's made of... but most everything else that makes us pretty exceptional we have no clue. (*Edit: I shouldn't say no clue... we just don't look into it enough). 



#199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
You clearly have not read the latest research that I provided to you.

You are the one who suggested that people flock to abiogenesis because of their terror of some unspecified, imaginary, magical "god".

Your inability to suggest a more viable hypothesis leaves abiogenesis the only option to explore scientifically.
#200
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You clearly have not read the latest research that I provided to you.
I did. You may not know it, but Miller-Urey is ancient.

You are the one who suggested that people flock to abiogenesis because of their terror of some unspecified, imaginary, magical "god".
Actually, you people suggest it yourselves. Why, other than fear,  would you keep bringing up God when I haven't?

Your inability to suggest a more viable hypothesis leaves abiogenesis the only option to explore scientifically.
That is blindingly stupid. Is Santa viable unless some other method is suggested? Are you really saying we should adopt a theory with no evidence at all because we don't have one? That is moronic.

Science points to life from life. That is what we see everyday. That is what all scientific experiments and observation indicates. There is no need to adopt bogus theories with no evidence.
#201
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@ethang5
Wait, what would your definition of abigenesis be?




Are you actually thinking of spontaneous generation, a completely different antiquated term?


Don't commit an association fallacy between the two ideas.
No one's proposing spontaneous generation and you need to be honest and know that.

#202
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
No one's proposing spontaneous generation and you need to be honest and know that.

Thats correct. I'm proposing coding of most complex RNA-DNA humans inherent to space and time via black holes as composed of clustering of slinky-like great tori, eternally!

Or some other cosmic egg factory of space and time. It may very well be we cannot ever have just/only gravitational SPACE and dark energy SPACE.

Observed --interfernce {  via inversions } as sine-wave patterns of Time is always existent inside the body of a slinky-like torus of gravitational and dark energy geodesic SPACE.

...SPACE(>*<)  i  (>*<)SPACE = always off-center, i.e. always and oscillation between something associated with bilateral actions ergo the bold * of one half bilateral consciousness.   Charge is always off-center postive or negative.

SPACE oscillates between peaks of positive and negative geodesic curvature on never less than  two or three sets of great tori as an integral, occupied space boson ex the meson{ medium/medio } that is exchanged between hadrons{ heavy  matter }.

Ricahard Feynman yelled out "in a pigs eye" to the suggestion from a theoretical physicst/mathematician, and then later had to eat his words a couple of year later when mesons were observed.

Humans have not, and may never ever observe spontaneous combustion or inherent coding of complex human RNA-DNA in black holes, or whatr ever cosmic egg. We may  observe such coding indirectly, as we do with virtual particles, photons etc. We see the indirect resultants of the coding in galaxys perhaps, sometimes and in some places, however rarely they may exist.

Rare does not neccesitated non-existent cosmic egg coding going on always and eternally in Universe. We have no scienfic evidence either way.


#203
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@mustardness
Ugh. Is this ebuc?
#204
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Ugh. Is this ebuc?
Ugh, yes human. When you have anything to share that invalidates any of my givens, as stated, Please share.

MagicAintReal unless it is not understood. Until then it may appear as magic to all all humans.

Biological/soul is magical. Access to metaphysical-1,  mind/intellect/concepts is magical.

Syntropy over entropy is magical.

Mass-attraction is magical.

There exists tons of magical stuff, depending who the observer is specifically.

Magic aint real, but we observe the resultant affects of seemingly magical stuff we do not comprehend wholey yet.

Ugh, human.  Ugh, to the stream of consciousness we each experience, interprete and may have differrent perceptions of.

#205
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@mustardness
"When you have anything to share that invalidates any of my givens"
I think one of your givens, that anyone gives a shit about the word association fit you have every time you make a post, is invalid.
Stop it.
Nothing you post makes sense and it's so obviously just you writing lame word associations.
Stop.
Stop it.
I know what you're thinking about doing...posting more word associations...don't...don't do it.
Stop it.

#206
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Lol
#207
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Unusually, quite a lot of common sense in this post.
#208
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@ethang5
So no response to the mountains of evidence that indicate everything about abiogenesis in the debate link I sent you?
Noted.
#209
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
The alternative hypothesis to Santa Claus is simply "normal humans purchase presents for children".

We know that unicellular organisms are made of certain component parts.

We know that these component parts are naturally occurring (Miller-Urey).

It is reasonable to believe that given enough time and enough variety of conditions, these component parts could have formed primitive self replicating structures like RNA.

Your alternative hypothesis is non-existent.

McCollom et al (1999) showed that lipids could form under conditions similar to hydrothermal vents.

Lincoln and Joyce (2009) demonstrated a simple pair of cooperative RNA ligases the can replicated each other with rather high yield.

Attwater et al (2013) have produced what is to date the longest RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization (up to 200 nucleotides). This is key, because the enzyme itself is about the same length, which means in principle we are one step closer to a polymerase that can copy itself in full. An interesting property of their study is that it occurs in a cold environment.

#210
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,

Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.

What they saw on their screens was their reality.

The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.

Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.

Only the game was real.  Only the game was shared experience.  Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta). 

Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense.  In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.
Science is the quantifiable, in-game, shared reality space.

You're trying to explain gnosis.

This would be a category error.

Abiogenesis is not - about "ultimate (spiritual/philosophical/gnostic) reality".

Abiogenesis is - about quantifiable, scientific, observable, verifiable reality.