What if god...

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

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...

 

The results are intriguing, but they don’t tackle the fundamental question of how RNA molecules originated in the first place. How did RNA spontaneously form from non-living matter, without the aid of any biological systems? Given RNA's inherent instability, how could such molecules have survived long enough to evolve? While the ability of RNA to generate new variants is significant, it addresses only a small part of the larger challenge of understanding how life could arise from non-living substances. This discovery is a piece of the puzzle, but it’s not the entire solution. More empirical evidence is needed to fully support this hypothesis and demonstrate how it could have occurred in a real-world prebiotic environment.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

The only thing you don't seem to understand is the value of study, in the formation of new idea's, it's a method of learning the subject at hand, so as too filter all of our imaginatively magical idea's; so we can concentrate on what might be real. 

Maybe, your just a troll/AI bot that's studying what buttons to press 

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The only thing you don't seem to understand is the value of study, in the formation of new idea's, it's a method of learning the subject at hand, so as too filter all of our imaginatively magical idea's; so we can concentrate on what might be real. 

Maybe, your just a troll/AI bot that's studying what buttons to press 

No imagination needed in formulating the contention that we do not know how life originated from matter. And it is a real and viable area of scientific enquiry. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

No imagination needed in formulating the contention that we do not know how life originated from matter. And it is a real and viable area of scientific enquiry. 

No indeed, so, what are your qualifications that allow you to inquire with confidence???

Or are you just quote jumping to sound clever???

[exchemist]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

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...

 

Yes this is sort of discussion it would be interesting to have, on all the items of difficulty in @Luc Turpin's list. The interesting thing about this work seems to be the possibility that quite small molecules could replicate. Once you have replication, the Darwinian engine of variation and natural selection can get started.  I'll need to look up the paper and see what these molecules look like and how simple, or not, they are. We know where the nucleotide bases could have come from.  

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The results are intriguing, but they don’t tackle the fundamental question of how RNA molecules originated in the first place. How did RNA spontaneously form from non-living matter, without the aid of any biological systems? Given RNA's inherent instability, how could such molecules have survived long enough to evolve? While the ability of RNA to generate new variants is significant, it addresses only a small part of the larger challenge of understanding how life could arise from non-living substances. This discovery is a piece of the puzzle, but it’s not the entire solution. More empirical evidence is needed to fully support this hypothesis and demonstrate how it could have occurred in a real-world prebiotic environment.

 

 

Obviously. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes this is sort of discussion it would be interesting to have, on all the items of difficulty in @Luc Turpin's list.

I completely agree with this statement, though I’ll need you to be patient with me, as I don’t have as much knowledge as you.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

If you mean evidence, don't say proof, then. The two are quite different.

Yes of course the study of abiogenesis is a field of research. But the word "abiogenesis" itself is simply a word for the emergence of life from non-life, however it occurred. This is an objective fact, because without it, we would not be here. As such it makes no sense to speak of challenges to abiogenesis, let alone alternatives to it. Yet you have spoken of both. 

You are welcome to challenge particular hypotheses that have been put forward to account for some of the steps required in abiogenesis. But you will have to do a lot better than simply point out the difficulties and list all the many things we do not know. If we knew them, we would not need to do the research, would we?

So pointing out already well-known difficulties is not "questioning abiogenesis theories". It is an empty criticism to simply point to the rather intractable issues to be resolved and claim that shows science is on the wrong track, when you have nothing to offer that addresses any of these issues. Which you do not as, by your own admission, you know nothing about biochemistry or pre-biotic chemistry. 

What do you think you are achieving? 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by exchemist

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

How did RNA spontaneously form from non-living matter

Because of the verbiage like this ^^^^, I think that by "abiogenesis" he means "spontaneous generation". Which it is not for a long time by now.

[Luc Turpin]

27 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What do you think you are achieving? 

So far, not much!

However, I do believe there’s value in discussing areas where science can improve. Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything. This is just one aspect of what I meant when I said that meaningful discussion isn’t taking place.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

So far, not much!

However, I do believe there’s value in discussing areas where science can improve. Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything. This is just one aspect of what I meant when I said that meaningful discussion isn’t taking place.

You interpret it as derision. It's really just pointing out where your arguments fail. We disagree with you, explain why, but you think it's derision. Yeah.

You interpret it as misconception. It's really just you claiming to be skeptical of the science. The problem with this is that skepticism shouldn't sit on a fence the way you do. A true skeptic questions, then finds out what the best explanation is, and goes with that. They get off the damn fence, but you seem to be sitting up there eternally, claiming since there are things we don't know that we should assume we're wrong about what we do know.

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You interpret it as derision. It's really just pointing out where your arguments fail. We disagree with you, explain why, but you think it's derision. Yeah.

You interpret it as misconception. It's really just you claiming to be skeptical of the science. The problem with this is that skepticism shouldn't sit on a fence the way you do. A true skeptic questions, then finds out what the best explanation is, and goes with that. They get off the damn fence, but you seem to be sitting up there eternally, claiming since there are things we don't know that we should assume we're wrong about what we do know.

Many of the comments I've received haven’t actually addressed the specifics of my arguments but instead resorted to blanket labels like “crackpot,” “creationist,” or “ignorant.” If that's not derision, then the tone comes across as overtly dismissive. When it comes to the claim of misconception, I’m referring to how I’ve been painted as “anti-science,” when, in reality, I’m only suggesting that some aspects of science need to be revisited and critically examined. As for being accused of “sitting on the fence,” I fail to see what’s wrong with that. What's wrong with staying intellectually honest, keeping an open mind, and not closing off avenues of exploration? Healthy skepticism and a willingness to reconsider ideas are fundamental to the scientific process.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

What's wrong with staying intellectually honest, keeping an open mind, and not closing off avenues of exploration?

Nothing, what's wrong is assuming you're either, despite the evidence...

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Many of the comments I've received haven’t actually addressed the specifics of my arguments but instead resorted to blanket labels like “crackpot,” “creationist,” or “ignorant.” If that's not derision, then the tone comes across as overtly dismissive.

Check back several pages. The labels didn't start until you kept ignoring the input from other members. In other words, you started acting like the stereotypical crackpot and creationist so you got labeled. And still you want to put the blame everywhere except on the person who is criticizing something they haven't studied very well.

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

When it comes to the claim of misconception, I’m referring to how I’ve been painted as “anti-science,” when, in reality, I’m only suggesting that some aspects of science need to be revisited and critically examined.

And when it was explained to you that many of these aspects are either being currently explored or met with failure, you continue with your vague admonitions about how science isn't critically examined. Honestly, this is the most hypocritical part, where you criticize people who've studied this for being uncritical. It's rather anti-science to NOT study science.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything.

Perhaps because none of your posts go beyond saying "science is hard".

No shit. Maybe if you'd move beyond that you'd get the "meaningful discussion" you'd like to see.

You seem to think 'life' is some magical quality bestowed on us. It's not. Life is just one of the many configurations that are possible with the physics of the universe, along with stars, galaxy clusters, rocks and rotten eggs.

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Many of the comments I've received haven’t actually addressed the specifics of my arguments but instead resorted to blanket labels like “crackpot,” “creationist,” or “ignorant.” If that's not derision, then the tone comes across as overtly dismissive

Your arguments lack substance. Pointing out that there are gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions doesn’t reveal anything that’s unknown, and your tone suggests you think this is some kind of crisis. But, if you went back ten years, there would be even more unanswered questions in science. Tens years before that, even more. So “unanswered questions in science” has never been a red flag and nothing has made it one.

”ignorant” isn’t inherently a term of derision; we’re all ignorant on some topics. It simply means you lack some knowledge, which you’ve admitted. But the information you have presented was gathered from somewhere, and since we’ve seen similar objections in other discussions, there is a strong suspicion that you’re getting your information from less-than-reliable sources (which you don’t share, so how can we tell?) and are simply parroting what you’ve read rather than formulating your own thoughts.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So far, not much!

However, I do believe there’s value in discussing areas where science can improve. Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything. This is just one aspect of what I meant when I said that meaningful discussion isn’t taking place.

Well we can certainly do that, if you are prepared to take on board some of what you have been told by me and others.  

1) Do you for example now agree that abiogenesis is an objective fact?

2) Are you also willing to agree that to challenge the science, you need to challenge specific hypotheses about the origin of particular elements of what seems needed for life, rather than just saying it's all terribly difficult?  

3) Do you also further recognise that simply referring to "the holographic principle", or to "quantum biology", without specifying how and where you think these ideas may help, is not useful?  

If you can agree these points and take them on board going forward, we can leave arguments borrowed (whether inadvertently or not) from creationism behind and be more constructive.  You must understand  that I and others here have had a bellyful of creationist crap over the years, so we have very short fuses when we see these arguments coming up yet again, whatever the reason. Your experience here is a direct result of that.  

I look forward to your responses on items 1-3.