Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness.

This is absurd. Science has been brilliantly successful at understanding life. Just take a course in biology, biochemistry or even medicine and you will see how much we know. 

Consciousness is another story altogether, as there is no consensus as to what "consciousness" means in a scientific sense. There is a good article about the issue here, by Massimo Pigliucci, whom I have found to be an exceptionally clear thinker who has no time for bullshit: https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief . We could have a discussion about that, but it would need a separate thread. So let's not muddy the waters by bundling that together with life. They are distinct topics.

What science has not yet succeeded in doing is to produce a model for the origin of life.  That is not, to anyone who understands a bit of biology or biochemistry, remotely a surprise. It is very complicated and the sequence of events involved took place over 3 billion years ago, leaving no fossil trace. So all we have to go on is what we can presume about the conditions on the prebiotic Earth and what we can see are the common biochemical features of all life today, from which we can make inferences about ancestral biochemistry.  

You have no basis for believing there is some fundamental difficulty in principle for science in understanding this. It is simply a hard problem, for the reasons I have just outlined.  So it will take time. In fact there may never be a definitive resolution, just a set of alternative possible models.

It is clear you have some kind of metaphysical bee in your bonnet about the limitations of science in understanding the world. I would quite agree there seems to be more to human experience than the physical world. This is the realm of the arts,  religion and (parts of) philosophy and I do not dismiss their value. But you make a huge error in arbitrarily picking out one feature of the physical world, life, to claim it is uniquely impossible to explain through science. There is just no basis for such a belief.

This error is identical to the one creationists make - and to the deliberately deceptive arguments that intelligent cdesign proponentsists promote. I think it was Cardinal Newman who, in the c.19th,  pointed out that the Christian who bases his faith on things in the physical world that science cannot explain is doomed to have it shattered as science progresses. Whether you are a Christian or not I do not know, but the argument applies. Do not look to features of the physical world to justify a belief in impenetrable mysteries beyond science. 

(P.S. To be strictly fair I should acknowledge that the reason, if any, why there is order in the cosmos, which we express through our "laws of nature", does seem destined to remain a mystery to science.)

Edited by exchemist
Posted (edited)
Labeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

Overconfidence in science is not a strength but a weakness of character. While science has made significant strides in understanding life—focusing on cellular processes, genetics, and other aspects—it has yet to answer some of the most fundamental questions. Specifically, how life emerges from matter or how a collection of cells generates consciousness remain unresolved. In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

Furthermore, the relationship between life and consciousness is complex, and understanding one may shed light on the other. Dismissing their interconnection could slow our progress.

Coming bach to abiogensis, the absence of a unified model on this matter may not be merely due to complexity or time, but could point to something fundamental we have yet to grasp. This is why, I believe, that scientists are exploring diverse avenues of inquiry. This assertion of a possible something else needs to be investigated before being outright ignored. Isn't questioning an integral part of science?

Metaphysical concerns are often unfairly dismissed as distractions, but they raise legitimate questions about the limits of scientific inquiry. While science has made impressive advances, it is reasonable to ask whether some aspects of life or consciousness lie beyond its explanatory reach. This should not be trivialized as a "metaphysical bees in your bonnet." Philosophical discussions about the nature of explanation and the limits of scientific knowledge are essential and should not be dismissed with catchphrases. Ignoring metaphysical concerns overlooks the complexity of epistemological debates on what can and cannot be known.

Not all critics of current scientific models of life’s origin are invoking religious or supernatural explanations. Many question the gaps and limitations in our current understanding. Unfortunately, views that challenge scientific orthodoxy are too often dismissed as creationist or anti-science, which oversimplifies the issue. Such dismissals ignore the nuanced perspectives of those advocating for a more expansive view of science. For instance, science, by its nature, does not address subjective experience, yet it often claims a comprehensive understanding of reality—an assertion that seems problematic.

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

Edited by Luc Turpin
Posted
13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

abeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

So why are you seeking validation from the other side???

Don't you trust your own thoughts???

Posted
Just now, dimreepr said:

So why are you seeking validation from the other side???

Don't you trust your own thoughts???

Not about validation, but about sharing!

Most of the time, I’m wrong, but every now and then, I’m right!

 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:
Labeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division.

Overconfidence in science is not a strength but a weakness of character. While science has made significant strides in understanding life—focusing on cellular processes, genetics, and other aspects—it has yet to answer some of the most fundamental questions. Specifically, how life emerges from matter or how a collection of cells generates consciousness remain unresolved. In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

Furthermore, the relationship between life and consciousness is complex, and understanding one may shed light on the other. Dismissing their interconnection could slow our progress.

Coming bach to abiogensis, the absence of a unified model on this matter may not be merely due to complexity or time, but could point to something fundamental we have yet to grasp. This is why, I believe, that scientists are exploring diverse avenues of inquiry. This assertion of a possible something else needs to be investigated before being outright ignored.

Metaphysical concerns are often unfairly dismissed as distractions, but they raise legitimate questions about the limits of scientific inquiry. While science has made impressive advances, it is reasonable to ask whether some aspects of life or consciousness lie beyond its explanatory reach. This should not be trivialized as a "metaphysical bees in your bonnet." Philosophical discussions about the nature of explanation and the limits of scientific knowledge are essential and should not be dismissed with catchphrases. Ignoring metaphysical concerns overlooks the complexity of epistemological debates on what can and cannot be known.

Not all critics of current scientific models of life’s origin are invoking religious or supernatural explanations. Many question the gaps and limitations in our current understanding. Unfortunately, views that challenge scientific orthodoxy are too often dismissed as creationist or anti-science, which oversimplifies the issue. Such dismissals ignore the nuanced perspectives of those advocating for a more expansive view of science. For instance, science, by its nature, does not address subjective experience, yet it often claims a comprehensive understanding of reality—an assertion that seems problematic.

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

When you have something concrete to contribute to the understanding of abiogenesis, I and others here will be delighted to discuss it with you. So far all you have put forward is misrepresentation and meaningless waffle.

It is not overconfidence in science that makes me criticise you for this, it is merely the ability to think straight and not be bamboozled with buzzwords.

Edited by exchemist
Posted
18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

Indeed and not demand a correctness that's undiserved, like my dad did by thumping the TV in a vain attempt to fix it; then claiming victory bc a quantum happened and the picture re-appears.

In conlusion, shit happens and more than half of the population imagine they are responsible... 

Guess which half???

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

When you have something concrete to contribute to the understanding of abiogenesis, I and others here will be delighted to discuss it with you. So far all you have put forward is misrepresentation and meaningless waffle.

It is not overconfidence in science that makes me criticise you for this, it is merely the ability to think straight and not be bamboozled with buzzwords.

We seem to be talking past each other, both bringing preconceived notions to the table. As such, I’ll respectfully decline your offer to continue this discussion unless I have something concrete to contribute as you say. I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that my contributions have been misunderstood or dismissed as meaningless waffle, without being properly considered.

Edited by Luc Turpin
Posted
7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that what I’ve offered has been misunderstood or dismissed as meaningles waffle, before even consideration.

Well, you aren't the first creationist to hide behind that piece of garbage argument. Before consideration?! Because you don't understand the science you're deriding, you don't recognize when others have carefully considered your waffle and found it lacking, even when they point out exactly what they mean. Crackpots often claim they're being dismissed out of hand, without consideration, just because they're challenging preconceived notions. 

But those preconceived notions are theories with mountains of evidence behind them. That's what's being taken into consideration when we read your posts. It's bizarre that you think your scratchings hurt the theories involved, when you have such a hurdle to overcome but don't bother to actually study the science. You prefer to pick what feels right to you, then quote mine anything that seems to support what you're saying. That's part of why you don't recognize that a LOT of consideration is being applied to your posts. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We seem to be talking past each other, both bringing preconceived notions to the table. As such, I’ll respectfully decline your offer to continue this discussion unless II have something concrete to contribute as you say. I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that what I’ve offered has been misunderstood or dismissed.

You have an excellent opportunity to actually learn something, from people who are actually learned (not me BTW, see my signature); so, stop thumping the TV FFS and listen.

No-one is talking past you, you just refuse to listen to things you don't understand.

TBH I'm not sure why your still here, I've been suspended for less...

Posted
1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself.

There have been people on street corners preaching that the end is nigh for a long time. And yes, they were invariably wrong, but THIS TIME, I assure you, the prediction is right.

That’s what this sounds like.

What has the approach you lobby for ever produced? 

Posted

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis:

  1. Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged.
  2. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules.
  3. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear.
  4. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent?
  5. Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form.
  6. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability.
  7. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally.
  8. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity.
  9. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery.
  10. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability.
  11. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life.

In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis:

  1. Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged.
  2. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules.
  3. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear.
  4. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent?
  5. Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form.
  6. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability.
  7. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally.
  8. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity.
  9. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery.
  10. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability.
  11. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life.

In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

FFS, It's the same thing over and over again in multiple topics/threads; science can't say that it actually knows something that maybe unknowable, therefore magic is just as possible bc I've seen it on the internet.

What if god hates people who think that magic is real??? I'm pretty sure Spinosa's god would disapprove... 😇 

Posted
4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

FFS, It's the same thing over and over again in multiple topics/threads; science can't say that it actually knows something that maybe unknowable, therefore magic is just as possible bc I've seen it on the internet.

What if god hates people who think that magic is real??? I'm pretty sure Spinosa's god would disapprove... 😇 

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

And I'll say it again, Learn some science before you try to solve it's flaw's... 🙄 

Posted
2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis:

  1. Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged.
  2. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules.
  3. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear.
  4. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent?
  5. Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form.
  6. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability.
  7. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally.
  8. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity.
  9. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery.
  10. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability.
  11. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life.

In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

!

Moderator Note

We don't discuss creationism here. It's been shown that it's a waste of time. All of these points have been refuted over and over again. Don't bring this up again, anywhere on this site. You've already wasted SO much time you could have spent studying science instead of criticizing from ignorance.

 
Posted
2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis:

  1. Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged.
  2. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules.
  3. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear.
  4. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent?
  5. Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form.
  6. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability.
  7. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally.
  8. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity.
  9. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery.
  10. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability.
  11. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life.

In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

As there is no “theory of abiogenesis”, it is a nonsense to list “challenges” to something that does not exist.
 

All your list does is enumerate some of the issues any theory will have to account for, plus adding in a few ignorant statements showing a lack of understanding of science.

Once again, it reads just like a set of creationist talking points. You really are a cracked record, aren’t you? 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

You are in no position to give anybody here lectures about good science. Your ignorance is stunning.

Posted
2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

And what makes you think that this isn’t happening? We typically don’t hear about works-in-progress or avenues that don’t pan out. Successes get published.

Posted
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

We don't discuss creationism here. It's been shown that it's a waste of time. All of these points have been refuted over and over again. Don't bring this up again, anywhere on this site. You've already wasted SO much time you could have spent studying science instead of criticizing from ignorance.

 

Respectfully, my position—and the points I’ve raised—have no connection to creationism. These points are based on a general consensus provided by those aware of or studying abiogenesis. None of it is creationism.

59 minutes ago, exchemist said:

1-As there is no “theory of abiogenesis”, it is a nonsense to list “challenges” to something that does not exist.
 

2-All your list does is enumerate some of the issues any theory will have to account for, plus adding in a few ignorant statements showing a lack of understanding of science.

3-Once again, it reads just like a set of creationist talking points. You really are a cracked record, aren’t you? 

4-You are in no position to give anybody here lectures about good science. Your ignorance is stunning.

  1. You’re right. I think that I should have used the term "model" instead. Nonetheless, they are still challenges to abiogenesis.

  2. My intention was to list the issues, not to imply they are insurmountable. I even mentioned that they don’t disprove abiogenesis.

  3. As I mentioned earlier, all of the points have nothing to do with creationism, just chalenges noted in the field of abiogenesis.

  4. I’m not trying to lecture anyone about good science; science is good. I’m simply trying to have a constructive discussion about potential issues in science. 

    2 hours ago, swansont said:

    And what makes you think that this isn’t happening? We typically don’t hear about works-in-progress or avenues that don’t pan out. Successes get published.

    It is happening! Those in quantum biology and proponents of the holographic principle are actually doing this.

 
Posted
14 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

It is happening! Those in quantum biology and proponents of the holographic principle are actually doing this

So all of this discussion is pointless.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Respectfully, my position—and the points I’ve raised—have no connection to creationism. These points are based on a general consensus provided by those aware of or studying abiogenesis. None of it is creationism.

  1. You’re right. I think that I should have used the term "model" instead. Nonetheless, they are still challenges to abiogenesis.

  2. My intention was to list the issues, not to imply they are insurmountable. I even mentioned that they don’t disprove abiogenesis.

  3. As I mentioned earlier, all of the points have nothing to do with creationism, just chalenges noted in the field of abiogenesis.

  4. I’m not trying to lecture anyone about good science; science is good. I’m simply trying to have a constructive discussion about potential issues in science. 

    It is happening! Those in quantum biology and proponents of the holographic principle are actually doing this.

 

It is nonsense for you to say any of these points is a "challenge to abiogenesis". I have already told you abiogenesis is simply a term for whatever the processes were that led to the appearance of life. It is a perfectly general term, involving no assumptions or preconceptions as to how it took place. It's like the formation of the solar system. We know that happened or we would not be here. So it would be mad to describe some issue as a challenge to the formation of the solar system.  In the same way, we know abiogenesis occurred, or we would not be here. This misconception that "abiogenesis" denotes some kind of theory, that can be challenged, is one I have come across before. From creationists. 

The first item on your list betrays ignorance about how science works. Firstly, it is in my experience only creationists that demand "proof" from science. They do so because they argue disingenuously, wanting to be able to say, "Aha, gotcha, you can't prove it!" Anyone who understands science knows it does not deal in proof where theories are concerned. Science deals in models, supported by observational evidence. Not proof.

Secondly, whatever makes you imagine there had to be an "exact transition" from non-life to life? This again betrays a (creationist-style) mindset of expecting magic poofing, at some precise instant of history, to confer life - shazzam! - on previously inanimate matter. But we have today examples of things that cannot be unambiguously classified as alive or non alive. The definition of "life" is notoriously hard to pin down. My son learned that at school, when he was 14.  It seems likely the transition was gradual, as various elements of biochemistry came together.

Both the demand for "proof" and the demand for an "exact transition" indicate the mode of argument of somebody who   is not interested in the science of abiogenesis. Creationists need abiogenesis to be an insoluble mystery, in order to make room for magic poofing by their God. You seem to be the same.

If you were interested in the subject, we could have a fascinating discussion about RNA world, bi-lipid membranes, the possibility that chirality is due to adsorption of substances on chirally selective faces of mineral crystals, the discovery of precursors to DNA and RNA bases (heterocyclic aromatic rings)  on carbonaceous meteorites and so on. But no. You want it to be an insoluble mystery, don't you? This is obscurantism: the opposite of the scientific attitude.   

Edited by exchemist
Posted
53 minutes ago, swansont said:

So all of this discussion is pointless.

Before deciding if a discussion is pointless, there actually needs to be a discussion in the first place—which isn’t happening right now.

Posted
2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Before deciding if a discussion is pointless, there actually needs to be a discussion in the first place—which isn’t happening right now.

Well, we’re on page 8, so some kind of discussion is happening. Perhaps it’s not the discussion you wanted, but then, it’s not your thread - you hijacked it. The OP asked “What if god was a jerk?” and you’re not discussing that at all.

And there are potentially some interesting discussions we could be having - you brought up quantum biology, for example, but nothing that actually dives into the details of that. You’ve been focusing on things that haven’t been found, and on techniques that you don’t give details about, and which have not yielded results, which means your focus is on…nothing. When others try and engage you, you avoid any substance. 

I suspect your real complaint is that you haven’t found a credulous audience. 

Posted
10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery.

Actually there is quite a bit of progress on this hypothesis, which is making it a leading hypothesis now on the path from prebiotic chemistry to simple life.  Here is a good summary (from about ten months ago) on Salk Institute research on RNAWH:

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html

New research at the Salk Institute now provides fresh insights on the origins of life, presenting compelling evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), unveils an RNA enzyme that can make accurate copies of other functional RNA strands, while also allowing new variants of the molecule to emerge over time. These remarkable capabilities suggest the earliest forms of evolution may have occurred on a molecular scale in RNA...

 

Posted

 
 

 
 
16 hours ago, exchemist said:

It is nonsense for you to say any of these points is a "challenge to abiogenesis". I have already told you abiogenesis is simply a term for whatever the processes were that led to the appearance of life. It is a perfectly general term, involving no assumptions or preconceptions as to how it took place. It's like the formation of the solar system. We know that happened or we would not be here. So it would be mad to describe some issue as a challenge to the formation of the solar system.  In the same way, we know abiogenesis occurred, or we would not be here. This misconception that "abiogenesis" denotes some kind of theory, that can be challenged, is one I have come across before. From creationists. 

The first item on your list betrays ignorance about how science works. Firstly, it is in my experience only creationists that demand "proof" from science. They do so because they argue disingenuously, wanting to be able to say, "Aha, gotcha, you can't prove it!" Anyone who understands science knows it does not deal in proof where theories are concerned. Science deals in models, supported by observational evidence. Not proof.

Secondly, whatever makes you imagine there had to be an "exact transition" from non-life to life? This again betrays a (creationist-style) mindset of expecting magic poofing, at some precise instant of history, to confer life - shazzam! - on previously inanimate matter. But we have today examples of things that cannot be unambiguously classified as alive or non alive. The definition of "life" is notoriously hard to pin down. My son learned that at school, when he was 14.  It seems likely the transition was gradual, as various elements of biochemistry came together.

Both the demand for "proof" and the demand for an "exact transition" indicate the mode of argument of somebody who   is not interested in the science of abiogenesis. Creationists need abiogenesis to be an insoluble mystery, in order to make room for magic poofing by their God. You seem to be the same.

If you were interested in the subject, we could have a fascinating discussion about RNA world, bi-lipid membranes, the possibility that chirality is due to adsorption of substances on chirally selective faces of mineral crystals, the discovery of precursors to DNA and RNA bases (heterocyclic aromatic rings)  on carbonaceous meteorites and so on. But no. You want it to be an insoluble mystery, don't you? This is obscurantism: the opposite of the scientific attitude.   

Abiogenesis isn’t just an abstract concept; it’s a specific area of scientific study focused on understanding how life might have emerged from non-living matter. Criticisms of abiogenesis aren’t attacks on science, but an acknowledgment that we still lack a clear, well-supported explanation for how life began. Comparing it to the formation of the solar system isn’t valid, as the origin of life remains unresolved, while the solar system’s origins are better understood.

When I mention "proof," I mean the need for evidence—evidence that builds over time, refining or strengthening theories while remaining open to revision. My concerns about the lack of evidence highlight gaps in our understanding, not an attack on science itself. Science doesn’t seek absolute proof, but there is still no universally accepted theory explaining how life emerged from non-living material, and the existing models have significant gaps.

The central question remains: How did simple molecules evolve into complex, self-replicating systems? Many models suggest a gradual process, but they still need to explain how non-living molecules could form living systems. No model has yet provided a comprehensive pathway from simple molecules to living organisms. Furthermore, life forms that blur the boundary between life and non-life highlight the need for a clearer definition of life, without diverting from the core issues of abiogenesis.

Regarding the claim that my questions echo creationism, I want to clarify that questioning abiogenesis theories is not rejecting science; it’s acknowledging the significant gaps in our understanding.

Ultimately, while I don’t see abiogenesis as an "unsolvable mystery," I do view it as a major scientific challenge—one that requires more research, new ideas, and continued refinement of existing models.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

life forms that blur the boundary between life and non-life highlight the need for a clearer definition of life

No, such definition is not necessary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.