Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 334
#211
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@MagicAintReal
So no response to the mountains of evidence that indicate everything about abiogenesis in the debate link I sent you?
There was no evidence at all, much less "mountains" of it. Miller-Urey was not evidence for abiogenesis.

Plus, you cannot force me to debate a silly issue. If you have any evidence for abiogenesis, post it. Otherwise, go do your debate.

#212
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Stop it.
Just as I thought you have nada to offer that invalidates anything ive presented.

Hot air "stop it"  bag is what, Gee thanks for your intellectual insight of "stop it".

Maybe you turn it into a M. Jackson type tune, jus stop bop, boop, stop itttt, stop ittt, oh stop it boop boop.

Sorry I dont have any musical note texticons to associate to my words above.

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.

#213
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@MagicAintReal
He didn't stop it.
#214
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
If you have any evidence for abiogenesis, post it.

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.


#215
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@ethang5

There was no evidence at all, much less "mountains" of it. Miller-Urey was not evidence for abiogenesis.

Plus, you cannot force me to debate a silly issue. If you have any evidence for abiogenesis, post it. Otherwise, go do your debate.

1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, volcanic activity, and UV rays representative of a prebiotic (before life) earth, inorganic compounds naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.


2. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.


3. Biologically active amino acid sequences in fact metabolize compounds.


4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of catalyzing amino acids and catalyzing hydrothermal vents, RNA emerges due to its auto-catalytic property.


5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this is able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network by replicating in a template-directed manner.


6. Available phosphorous in this network encapsulates and acts as a barrier for the biologically active, metabolic amino acid chains and auto-catalytic, self-replicating RNA, which, all components combined, is a collectively compartmentalized protocell.


7. These protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.


8. A protocell with a phosphoric membrane and genetic polymers that can metabolize and self replicate is a full blown living cell, and these single cells are life; they're simple life, but they're life.


9. These simple life forms would need to eventually consume more, and the network of amino acids and other compounds in the region were in fact edible.

Topic's author
#216
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@MagicAintReal
Until scientists can instantly grow a human being from a test tube, Ethan will say there is no evidence.
#217
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
McCollom et al (1999) showed that lipids could form under conditions similar to hydrothermal vents.
How is this evidence for abiogenesis? Did any of those lipids become bio? If cinder blocks can form naturally, is that evidence that houses occur spontaneously?

Lincoln and Joyce (2009) demonstrated a simple pair of cooperative RNA ligases the can replicated each other with rather high yield.
So what? That is what RNA is supposed to do. How is this evidence for abiogenesis? Plus, tell the Gentle Reader where the RNA came from. Go ahead. Don't be shy.

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.
This is not evidence for abiogenesis. The same reproduction techniques are used for many other things like carbon fibers and crystals.

Biological materials have always existed. We have known for ages that they occur in nature. But so what? Abiogenesis says LIFE can come from inorganic material. We already know that our bodies are ultimately made from inorganic materials. Abiogenesis says we can get from that inorganic material to LIFE spontaneously.

That is untrue and against all science to date. At best, your "evidence" is for the natural formation of organic materials. A far cry from evidence for abiogenesis.
#218
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Until scientists can instantly grow a human being from a test tube, Ethan will say there is no evidence.
Not a human being, just life. Simple life.
Topic's author
#219
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Biological materials have always existed. We have known for ages that they occur in nature. But so what?
Notice how Ethan avoids the elephant in the room.

#220
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Now, now, I wouldn't call bully an elephant. And I avoid him because he's an idiot troll. A good reason to avoid anyone I think.

Is he in the room?


#221
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Science is the quantifiable, in-game, shared reality space.
Whatever science is, it's in its infancy if max adolescence. So i don't think alternative theories that may sound supernatural should be written off. However, that is one big problem i see in the current method of science we have... it is a tool for understanding "our" reality. Or at least at this point, our reality is what it tests best. Do we have any measures to test for an eternal intelligence that is beyond our reality? Maybe we will, but i don't think we do. It's like telling a video game character to test for us... the question comes down to... could it ever?  

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.

I don't know what you mean so if you can clarify. I'm not putting anything into categories i think. It's just one other category i feel should be looked into since the latter category we don't even have conclusive proof. I would even bet on natural means being the case bc that is what it should look like in an ID scenario. All i'm saying is that ID can't be counted out just bc it is supernatural in nature. I'm agnostic in the end of the day so i can't push for it like others might... i just think ID is something that can be true. More so than creationism, a lot more so... but even that could be true. But unlike creationism... ID has i would say pretty good evidence going for it. Ultimately, it could be neither and some kind of matrix set up. All i'm saying in relation to what you asked earlier... there are other platforms that can explain life.  Just bc we don't know them doesn't mean anything. Bc in relation to my first answer... we really have no way to test these other ideas since they mostly all would be some kind of alternative reality.  




#222
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ethang5
He didn't stop it.
I responded to hot air with hot air humor.  Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense that invaldidates any of my givens, as stated.

You do not because you, lie others have not to share. More hot air bag is what you have to offer.

There exists no direct evidence of biological/soul life coming from where there was none via synergetic effect of molecules of early Earth or by  humans.

The truth exists for those seek it, those who dont, and those who scoff at it. 


#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Nice.
#224
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
Science can only answer "how", it can never answer "why".

Certainly "intelligent design" might be "true", but it is not within the realm of science.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Abiogenesis is about science and not metaphysics/gnosis.
#225
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Abiogenesis is about science...

No it isn't. Not unless you have a private definition of science.

#226
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Guys, there is a process by which the Creator establishes universes, planets and creatures that survive on those planets. The bodies that inhabit the planet takes time to create them to where they are currently. Call that process whatever you want, but please consider the Creator in that process rather than believing that process exists independent of God. Why does any process exist? ask yourself that, why deny God in the process? or why not consider God in that process?
#227
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Science can only answer "how", it can never answer "why".

Certainly "intelligent design" might be "true", but it is not within the realm of science.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Then that would be very intelligent of you. This is true in so many ways very good, I wish more people would consider that. 

Abiogenesis is about science and not metaphysics/gnosis.

But is it true? did conscious awareness and living creatures arise through a materialistic process or did energy take on forms in creation because it first had an awareness to do so? it's no secret that there exists material forms, but why do those forms exist, why does anything transform into a living thing? or does living things only come from living things, or that living consciousness takes on forms.....meaning does all that exists exist because there was first a living reality?
#228
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is a self-replicating molecule "alive"?

Is a self-replicating virus "alive"?
#229
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Science can only answer "how", it can never answer "why".

Certainly "intelligent design" might be "true", but it is not within the realm of science.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Abiogenesis is about science and not metaphysics/gnosis
I completely understand that. Science is a way to get to the "how" which requires the study of reality as is... i agree. The "why" isn't in it's purview. Abiogenesis is tricky however imho... I believe it's tricky bc this may be the only point in time ID played a factor. In that initial spark setting motion life. Other than that, i don't think it plays a factor and if it does play a factor in our reality... it only does so through human consciousness and/or humans in general. I often times look at it as a video game analogy. But the characters in the video game are as conscious as we are. What would they have to find in order to prove to themselves how their reality started? That's why i don't favor creationism... their reality didn't just pop into existence... it was designed into existence. Examples and ideas like that make me favor ID. In regards to abiogenesis however... i am ambivalent. It could have happened naturally in some freak amazing occurrence, or was set in motion by something else. The something else is just more attractive in my opinion but i don't discount the latter as maybe being the case too.  
#230
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
It could have happened naturally in some freak amazing occurrence, or was set in motion by something else. The something else is just more attractive in my opinion but i don't discount the latter as maybe being the case too.  
Well stated.
#231
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything that takes on a physical form in creation has to first have an awareness to do so. All cells included have a consciousness to them. 

However, awareness in and of itself is not always a controlled event in creation. Sometimes it has to be recurved because awareness can take off as it responds to the physical environment. 

"Molecules are made up of atoms that are held together by chemical bonds. These bonds form as a result of the sharing or exchange of electrons among atoms."

Even the atom has an awareness, so yes they are alive. Would you say they are not? 
#232
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Is a self-replicating molecule "alive"?
Is a self-replicating virus "alive"?
The words 'alive' and 'dead' have be around a long time, long before there were dictionaries or people had to deal with problematic cases like self-replicating molecules!

I don't know who gets to give words precise meanings, but whoever it is hasn't got around to 'life' yet.  
Nasa defines life as "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution."

So self-replicating molecules and viruses are both definitely 'nasa-alive', but whether theyare 'catholic church alive' or 'DA.com alive' depends on the precise wording of whatever definition is adopted.

 



#233
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@ethang5
Just to be clear, I posted up to 9 different sources that verify up to 30 pieces of evidence and you've failed to respond to any of it, right?
Noted.
#234
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@mustardness
Hot air "stop it"  bag is what, Gee thanks for your intellectual insight of "stop it".

Maybe you turn it into a M. Jackson type tune, jus stop bop, boop, stop itttt, stop ittt, oh stop it boop boop.

Ugh.
mustardness = must be hard jizz which is exactly the cosine limit of eating hard jizz which must start this mustardness ridiculousness, which all human systems reject this because squirt squirt squirt mustard is just hard jizz.
Topic's author
#235
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
please consider the Creator in that process rather than believing that process exists independent of God. Why does any process exist? ask yourself that, why deny God in the process? or why not consider God in that process?
Fine, it's been considered, but since there's no evidence, the idea is pointless to consider further. Got anything else?

#236
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@MagicAintReal
Just to be clear, I posted up to 9 different sources that verify up to 30 pieces of evidence and you've failed to respond to any of it, right?
I don't have to respond to any of it. But I did. It isn't evidence for abiogenesis and does not become so by you slapping that label on it. You aren't a court, and I have no obligation to respond to you. And if I do, I respond how I like.

Noted.
No need to inform me on what you note. No matter how much you try to pester me, I won't change. You have no scientific evidence that shows life can start from inorganic materials. I don't care if your poor science education makes you mistake fluff for scientific evidence. But I do not have to agree with you.

Don't you have a debate to attend?


#237
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Fine, it's been considered, but since there's no evidence, the idea is pointless to consider further.
Except when its no evidence abiogenesis.
#238
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@ethang5
"I don't have to respond to any of it. But I did."
Where?
All I keep seeing from you are excuses; you're kind of an intellectual pussy.


It isn't evidence for abiogenesis
Specifically what from the evidence I sent you, which is numbered, isn't evidence?


and does not become so by you slapping that label on it. You aren't a court, and I have no obligation to respond to you. And if I do, I respond how I like.
Or not at all, right?


You have no scientific evidence that shows life can start from inorganic materials.
Yes I do; you ran way from them.
You have no response, and in fact you've said that you don't have to respond...to the very thing you claim doesn't exist.
You think that you can just assert that there's no evidence and then when presented with the literal foil to your stupid "nah-uh" argument, run away from it.


I don't care if your poor science education makes you mistake fluff for scientific evidence. But I do not have to agree with you.
I said respond, not agree.
You have yet to respond to the evidence, let alone agree with it.


Don't you have a debate to attend?
Don't you have learning to do?
#239
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
All I keep seeing from you are excuses; you're kind of an intellectual pussy.
Must be why you're chasing me. Sorry, I'm not gay, though I should have known you were.

Specifically what from the evidence I sent you, which is numbered, isn't evidence?
None of it is. If anyone ever got real evidence for abiogenesis, it would be heralded by the leftist media as if it was the second coming of the Beatles. The simple existence of amino acids is not evidence that life spontaneously generates.

I said respond, not agree.
I responded. It isn't evidence.

You have yet to respond to the evidence, let alone agree with it.
It isn't evidence. Deal with it.

Don't you have learning to do?
Yes I do. And if you'd stop chasing me with this idiocy, I'd get back to it. I'll assume you have a life to get back to.
#240
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Even the atom has an awareness, so yes they are alive. Would you say they are not? 
This would seem to be an ontological problem.

I see it as a sliding scale, I was attempting to calibrate your perspective.

So, in your view, the phenomenon of the big bang is, itself, evidence of life/intelligence?

This would seem to short-circuit any discussion of abiogenesis.