Genady Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I maintain that most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to understand how the world works, whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged in science is a matter for debate. When looking at science across various fields, it’s evident that we are making significant progress in deepening our understanding of the world. I’m not suggesting that our comprehension is complete, but that it is an ongoing process. Discovery is crucial, but without a general sense of intent, it becomes data without much meaning. I maintain that this is preaching, which is against the rules.
swansont Posted January 20 Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Taking several days to prepare a single post is not lazy. Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality. “I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Accompanying citations with arguments is not fallacious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true.
Genady Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Scientific writing guidelines, "Using Quotations in Scientific Writing": Quote Unlike other styles of writing, scientific writing rarely includes direct quotations. Why? • Quotations usually detract from the point you want to communicate. • Quotations do not reflect original thinking. Inexperienced writers may be tempted to quote, especially when they don’t understand the content. However, the writer who understands her subject can always find a way to paraphrase from a research article without losing the intended meaning – and paraphrasing shows that the writer knows what she is talking about. Etc. quotes_082014 Quote In academia, quotes should be used sparingly; many academic papers don’t use them at all. _quoting_and_paraphrasing.pdf Quote Scientists often use the ideas and findings of other scientists in our writing, but it is rare in scientific writing to use direct quotations from previously published work. When writers incorporate the ideas or findings of others in their writing, rather than quote, they paraphrase (and cite), taking great care to avoid any hint of plagiarism. An adage in scientific writing is “focus on the science, not on the scientists.” In other words, scientists generally avoid using quotations. Using Literature – Write Like A Scientist
Luc Turpin Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, exchemist said: It is not clear what you are talking about here. It is perfectly obvious how inanimate matter (e.g. food substances, oxygen) become incorporated into living tissue. Do you really think we don't know how that happens? Or are you saying we don't know how abiogenesis occurred? That is undeniably true, since it is one of the hardest problems in modern science, due to the lack of direct evidence from almost 4bn years ago when it took place. However considerable progress has been made. Contrary to what you seem to be trying to insinuate, there is no reason to think there is some special magic ingredient, beyond the scope of biochemistry, involved. Life is quite evidently a process of biochemical reactions and biophysical processes, occurring within cells. Can you clarify what it is you are suggesting is missing? The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative. 1 hour ago, Genady said: I maintain that this is preaching, which is against the rules. I beg to differ, the text is not preaching, but rather an expression of an opinion about the nature of scientific inquiry. I am not imparting a moral or doctrinal message. I am just conveying what reputable scientists have said about understanding reality. I am trying to share a perspective. 51 minutes ago, swansont said: Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality. “I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true. I wouldn’t call myself intellectually lazy, though I may not be the sharpest, as I honestly don’t know where to begin with this.
exchemist Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative. No it doesn't at all. This is reminiscent of creationist claptrap. There are many fields of scientific knowledge that are acquired by observation without anything at all being done in a laboratory, and many natural processes that we have understood even through they cannot be observed to take place on a human timescale, for instance star formation, or plate tectonics. It is trivially obvious that our knowledge of abiogenesis is incomplete, so sure, there are key steps to be elucidated, but this is true of any active area of scientific research. There is nothing unique about life in that respect. There is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" that is somehow unique to the understanding of how life arose. It is just a question of the obvious difficulty of piecing together something very complex by extrapolating from present biochemistry back 4bn years and fitting it to what we know of pre-biotic chemistry on the Earth at that time. As for quantum biology, this is nothing special either, really. All chemistry depends on quantum mechanics. Quantum effects are everywhere in biochemistry, though we are finding (or speculating about) new processes in some of which relatively exotic QM phenomena, such as tunnelling, have been invoked. There is no way I can see that considering such QM effects would materially alter the challenge of understanding abiogenesis. Understanding abiogenesis is just a very, very big jigsaw to assemble. I don't understand why you keep harping on about some mystical missing element - unless you are creationist who doesn't want to admit it, of course.😁 Edited January 20 by exchemist 1
Luc Turpin Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 21 minutes ago, exchemist said: No it doesn't at all. This is reminiscent of creationist claptrap. There are many fields of scientific knowledge that are acquired by observation without anything at all being done in a laboratory, and many natural processes that we have understood even through they cannot be observed to take place on a human timescale, for instance star formation, or plate tectonics. It is trivially obvious that our knowledge of abiogenesis is incomplete, so sure, there are key steps to be elucidated, but this is true of any active area of scientific research. There is nothing unique about life in that respect. There is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" that is somehow unique to the understanding of how life arose. It is just a question of the obvious difficulty of piecing together something very complex by extrapolating from present biochemistry back 4bn years and fitting it to what we know of pre-biotic chemistry on the Earth at that time. As for quantum biology, this is nothing special either, really. All chemistry depends on quantum mechanics. Quantum effects are everywhere in biochemistry, though we are finding (or speculating about) new processes in some of which relatively exotic QM phenomena, such as tunnelling, have been invoked. There is no way I can see that considering such QM effects would materially alter the challenge of understanding abiogenesis. Understanding abiogenesis is just a very, very big jigsaw to assemble. I don't understand why you keep harping on about some mystical missing element - unless you are creationist who doesn't want to admit it, of course.😁 If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap. Edited January 20 by Luc Turpin -2
iNow Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Gullibility? Ignorance? Preference for simple falsehoods over hard truths? I could go on
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap. Haha, now you are arguing in bad faith - curiously, another common tactic of creationists. It is quite clear from my previous post that the "creationist claptrap" I referred to is the silly notion that just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place. I also made it clear that quantum biology is an established field of science - and therefore obviously I do not consider that to be creationist claptrap. Is it your normal practice to misrepresent what your interlocutors say in this way? If so, it is going to be hard to have a constructive conversation with you. As for your claim that some have turned to quantum biology as a potential "venue" (whatever that may mean) for life, who are these people? As I say, quantum effects are normal in biochemistry. What is in my admittedly non-expert view unlikely is any significant role for quantum entanglement, given the "warm, wet, noisy" environment of the cell. The only attempt at invoking entanglement I'm aware of is the largely discredited Orch OR hypothesis of Penrose and Hameroff to account for consciousness. Consciousness ≠ life, needless to say. So who are these people you have in mind? Can you give names and provide links to information about their hypotheses? Edited January 21 by exchemist
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 3 hours ago, exchemist said: Haha, now you are arguing in bad faith - curiously, another common tactic of creationists. It is quite clear from my previous post that the "creationist claptrap" I referred to is the silly notion that just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place. I also made it clear that quantum biology is an established field of science - and therefore obviously I do not consider that to be creationist claptrap. Is it your normal practice to misrepresent what your interlocutors say in this way? If so, it is going to be hard to have a constructive conversation with you. As for your claim that some have turned to quantum biology as a potential "venue" (whatever that may mean) for life, who are these people? As I say, quantum effects are normal in biochemistry. What is in my admittedly non-expert view unlikely is any significant role for quantum entanglement, given the "warm, wet, noisy" environment of the cell. The only attempt at invoking entanglement I'm aware of is the largely discredited Orch OR hypothesis of Penrose and Hameroff to account for consciousness. Consciousness ≠ life, needless to say. So who are these people you have in mind? Can you give names and provide links to information about their hypotheses? You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors. Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline. Edited January 21 by Luc Turpin
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis No, that’s not the idea.
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, swansont said: No, that’s not the idea. Substantiate
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Just now, Luc Turpin said: Substantiate It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it.
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 27 minutes ago, swansont said: It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it. 'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life. Edited January 21 by Luc Turpin
dimreepr Posted January 21 Posted January 21 15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life. Quantum stuff must have had an effect on abiogenesis, and one day when we understand quatum stuff a bit better, we'll be able to take a stab at what effect that quantum stuff might have had. Just saying quantum did it, is no explanation ATM.
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life. This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is simply a term meaning the natural processes by which biochemistry and thus life arose from pre-biotic chemistry. Quantum biology is just one, existing, small subset of the biochemical processes that science already considers, when investigating the chemical processes within cells. Quantum biology is not some magical extra alternative to biochemistry: it's part of it. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors. Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline. I can't find evidence that Nicholas Gisin has interests in quantum biology, but I see Jim Al Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden co-authored a book on quantum biology. But this does not, so far as I can see, suggest anything special to do with abiogenesis. It seems to be about recent discoveries of things such as QM tunnelling by protons in certain biochemical processes and the possible presence of QM coherence effects in the process of photosynthesis. This is all just a subset of biochemistry, not some magical extra ingredient that somehow enabled life to form. If you can provide a citation from any of these researchers specifically involving a quantum biology process in abiogenesis I would be interested to read it. But I doubt you will be able to. As far as I can see none of these people has a background or expertise in abiogenesis research. (Michael Terry seems to be either an actor or a serial killer, according to my search engine).
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Not really. You have to include the statement it’s denying, which was that quantum biology being considered an alternative to abiogenesis. There’s really only one way to negate a statement if the form “A is B” 52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Chemistry includes quantum effects - a degree in chemistry would include a course on physical chemistry, which includes QM. Quantum chemistry is a branch of p-chem. Quantum effects were never excluded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry No part of science would be an alternative to abiogenesis. Quote Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life. Since we don’t actually know the process, how can anything be an alternative? If it’s correct, it would simply be the explanation. 1
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 55 minutes ago, exchemist said: This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is simply a term meaning the natural processes by which biochemistry and thus life arose from pre-biotic chemistry. Quantum biology is just one, existing, small subset of the biochemical processes that science already considers, when investigating the chemical processes within cells. Quantum biology is not some magical extra alternative to biochemistry: it's part of it. Yes, quantum mechanics certainly influences biochemical processes, but quantum biology might be providing new insights into the mechanisms of life at the molecular and atomic levels. To explain the emergence of life from non-living matter, it could be that it is no longer enough to focus solely on chemical reactions; we may also need to consider processes at the atomic and quantum levels. To me, this represents a significant shift in at least where we are searching for answers. However, there’s no guarantee that the solution lies exclusively in either chemical or atomic explanations. Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level. The question of how life arises from non-living matter remains an active area of research, and the scope of this search has broadened. Explaining life purely through chemistry appears increasingly insufficient; it seems that "something else" or "something more" (jury still out on this one) is required to fully uncover this fundamental mystery. That was the point that I was trying to make. I might also add that we are getting further and further away from the original religious intention of this thread. Edited January 21 by Luc Turpin
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Just now, Luc Turpin said: Yes, quantum mechanics certainly influences biochemical processes, but quantum biology is providing new insights into the mechanisms of life at the molecular and atomic levels. To explain the emergence of life from non-living matter, it’s no longer enough to focus solely on chemical reactions; we may also need to consider processes at the atomic and quantum levels. To me, this represents a significant shift in where we are searching for answers. However, there’s no guarantee that the solution lies exclusively in either chemical or atomic explanations. Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level. The question of how life arises from non-living matter remains an active area of research, and the scope of this search has broadened. Explaining life purely through chemistry appears increasingly insufficient; it seems that "something else" or "something more" (jury still out on this one) is required to fully uncover this fundamental mystery. That was the point that I was trying to make. You are making this up and it is ballocks. There is no dividing line, as you seem to imagine, between chemistry and quantum processes. All of chemistry consists of quantum processes at the "atomic and quantum levels". Tunnelling phenomena have been a part of chemistry for decades, e.g. the inversion spectrum of ammonia. And you have yet to provide any evidence that QM tunnelling or entanglement can shed any light at all on abiogenesis. When you say" Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level." this is just quantum woo. It is meaningless. I repeat: show me please a citation, by any of the researchers you mention, that proposes a specific role for quantum biological processes at some stage in the chain of processes involved in abiogenesis. I bet you can't, because you have made it up. You have no understanding of quantum mechanics or biochemistry and because you don't understand either you are trying to make a religion out of them. This is cargo cult stuff.
dimreepr Posted January 21 Posted January 21 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I might also add that we are getting further and further away from the original religious intention of this thread. Indeed, but your arguments have been on topic throughout; quantum is the latest god you've chosen to hide behind... 🙄
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 45 minutes ago, exchemist said: You are making this up and it is ballocks. There is no dividing line, as you seem to imagine, between chemistry and quantum processes. All of chemistry consists of quantum processes at the "atomic and quantum levels". Tunnelling phenomena have been a part of chemistry for decades, e.g. the inversion spectrum of ammonia. And you have yet to provide any evidence that QM tunnelling or entanglement can shed any light at all on abiogenesis. When you say" Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level." this is just quantum woo. It is meaningless. I repeat: show me please a citation, by any of the researchers you mention, that proposes a specific role for quantum biological processes at some stage in the chain of processes involved in abiogenesis. I bet you can't, because you have made it up. You have no understanding of quantum mechanics or biochemistry and because you don't understand either you are trying to make a religion out of them. This is cargo cult stuff. I did not suggest that there is a clear dividing line between chemistry and quantum processes. To understand the process of life, we now need to be looking beyond traditional chemical reactions. That’s the point I’m making—not that the two processes are separate, but that "more" is needed to understand life. I don’t need to provide evidence for concepts like superposition, entanglement, or tunneling, as I’m not defending quantum biology. My point is simply that quantum biology is an active area of debate when it comes to the origin of life from non-living matter. Similarly, I’m not claiming that the holographic principle is necessarily involved in life’s origins, but rather that some researchers believe it might be. I’d encourage you to look into the principle further before dismissing it as “quantum woo.” Ultimately, my point is not to argue that the answer lies in chemicals, atoms, or information, but rather that the search for life’s origins has expanded because the transition from matter to life is more complex than initially anticipated. 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Indeed, but your arguments have been on topic throughout; quantum is the latest god you've chosen to hide behind... 🙄 I was discussing spirituality before the conversation veered off course. I’m not hiding behind quantum theory, as I don’t believe the answer necessarily lies there. In fact, I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time. Edited January 21 by Luc Turpin
dimreepr Posted January 21 Posted January 21 26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time. What if god did it, is cleary not one of the option's, if you want to make sense...
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What if god did it, is cleary not one of the option's, if you want to make sense... I am more into processes for answers, than God did it!
dimreepr Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said: I am more into processes for answers, than God did it! You might think you are, but time passes differently here... 🤓
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Ultimately, my point is not to argue that the answer lies in chemicals, atoms, or information, but rather that the search for life’s origins has expanded because the transition from matter to life is more complex than initially anticipated. Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple.
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I did not suggest that there is a clear dividing line between chemistry and quantum processes. To understand the process of life, we now need to be looking beyond traditional chemical reactions. That’s the point I’m making—not that the two processes are separate, but that "more" is needed to understand life. I don’t need to provide evidence for concepts like superposition, entanglement, or tunneling, as I’m not defending quantum biology. My point is simply that quantum biology is an active area of debate when it comes to the origin of life from non-living matter. Similarly, I’m not claiming that the holographic principle is necessarily involved in life’s origins, but rather that some researchers believe it might be. I’d encourage you to look into the principle further before dismissing it as “quantum woo.” Ultimately, my point is not to argue that the answer lies in chemicals, atoms, or information, but rather that the search for life’s origins has expanded because the transition from matter to life is more complex than initially anticipated. I was discussing spirituality before the conversation veered off course. I’m not hiding behind quantum theory, as I don’t believe the answer necessarily lies there. In fact, I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time. You have offered no reason why we should "look beyond traditional chemical reactions" (whatever you mean by "traditional" - it seems to me to be a meaningless distinction). You offer no example of how the "more" you speak of solves any problem in abiogenesis. You seem to imagine there is some fundamental stumbling block to understanding. There isn't. As @swansont points out, nobody in the world of biochemistry has come to the conclusion life is "more complex than initially anticipated". You have made that up. It is just a very complex issue, involving a lot of subsystems of chemical processes and physical structures. There is no special missing piece. I ask you again: can you cite any specific role, or hypothetical role, in abiogenesis that quantum processes like tunnelling or entanglement can play, which would overcome a difficulty puzzling those working in the field? How can such processes help in the mechanism for forming the first bilipid membrane, for example? Or the process by which the ATP,<-> ADP interconversion became adopted as the energy transport method for cellular processes? Or the process by which chirality in saccharides and proteins became established? You have no idea.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now