Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 50 minutes ago, swansont said: Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple. I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them. 25 minutes ago, exchemist said: 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. We’ve examined various approaches to understanding abiogenesis: experiments with primordial soup, prebiotic chemistry such as the RNA world, self-replicating molecules, lipid membranes, and computational models designed to accelerate the evolutionary process. Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter. When it comes to quantum processes and their potential role in abiogenesis, my reading suggests that quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions while coherence might speed up these reactions. additionnaly, the holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe. I’m not a chemistry expert like you, but I’m starting to get a bit frustrated with the accusations.
Genady Posted January 21 Posted January 21 30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer Quantum entanglement does not involve information transfer in any way.
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them. How in the world do any of those quotes suggest that anyone thought figuring out abiogenesis would be simple? (The only one that might lean in that direction is from Popper, who was not a biologist.) You might be able to get a little traction if you dig for quotes from before DNA was discovered, in the realization of just how difficult the difficult problem was. 1 hour ago, Genady said: Quantum entanglement does not involve information transfer in any way. That’s not really accurate. The limitation is on superluminal information transfer. Information transfer is part of teleportation, which uses entanglement. So it’s involved. That said, I’ve never seen a clear explanation of the role of entanglement in biology in articles that tout it (but those are pop-sci articles that often get entanglement details wrong anyway)
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them. We’ve examined various approaches to understanding abiogenesis: experiments with primordial soup, prebiotic chemistry such as the RNA world, self-replicating molecules, lipid membranes, and computational models designed to accelerate the evolutionary process. Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter. When it comes to quantum processes and their potential role in abiogenesis, my reading suggests that quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions while coherence might speed up these reactions. additionnaly, the holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe. I’m not a chemistry expert like you, but I’m starting to get a bit frustrated with the accusations. No you certainly are not! And the accusations will keep coming unless you raise your game and stop misrepresenting abiogenesis research - see below for the many ways in which you are doing that. You list these ideas as if they are alternative attempts that have all failed in some way, to be discarded in favour of some other approach. This is an absurd misreading of how the science is done. Lipid membranes are one part of the puzzle. RNA, or some other replication system, is another, different one. The Miller Urey "primordial soup" experiment was done in the 1950s, 70 years ago now, and it was very informative at the time. These are not failed alternatives but different pieces of the jigsaw, being pursued concurrently, or which (like the Miller Urey experiment) served a purpose in advancing knowledge many years ago, to be followed up by newer approaches built on those foundations. And none of this research has the goal of generating life artificially. That is a complete red herring. So for you to say "despite these efforts" we have not succeeded in generating artificial life is a ridiculously false characterisation of what abiogenesis research is about. Of course we haven't: that has never been the goal. At every stage in this discussion you sound more and more like a creationist. This is the sort of nonsense I have become used to from them. "Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know? "The holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" is even worse. That is utter, question-begging gibberish. What do you mean by "information" being "encoded in the universe"? Who says it is? And what relevance does this woolly notion have to abiogenesis? As for complexity, that emerges all the time in nature and there is no mystery at all about how that happens. So there is no problem of principle to solve there. You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering pseudo-mystical woolly nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define. Edited January 21 by exchemist 1
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 28 minutes ago, exchemist said: No you certainly are not! And the accusations will keep coming unless you raise your game and stop misrepresenting abiogenesis research - see below for the many ways in which you are doing that. You list these ideas as if they are alternative attempts that have all failed in some way, to be discarded in favour of some other approach. This is an absurd misreading of how the science is done. Lipid membranes are one part of the puzzle. RNA, or some other replication system, is another, different one. The Miller Urey "primordial soup" experiment was done in the 1950s, 70 years ago now, and it was very informative at the time. These are not failed alternatives but different pieces of the jigsaw, being pursued concurrently, or which (like the Miller Urey experiment) served a purpose in advancing knowledge many years ago, to be followed up by newer approaches built on those foundations. And none of this research has the goal of generating life artificially. That is a complete red herring. So for you to say "despite these efforts" we have not succeeded in generating artificial life is a ridiculously false characterisation of what abiogenesis research is about. Of course we haven't: that has never been the goal. At every stage in this discussion you sound more and more like a creationist. This is the sort of nonsense I have become used to from them. "Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know? "The holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" is even worse. That is utter question-begging gibberish. What do you mean by "information" being "encoded in the universe"? Who says it is? And what relevance does this woolly notion have to abiogenesis? As for complexity, that emerges all the time in nature and there is no mystery at all about how that happens. So there is no problem of principle to solve there. You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define. The goal of abiogenesis research is not to create life, but rather to understand how life could have emerged from non-living matter. While various approaches represent complementary pieces of the puzzle rather than failed alternatives, this does not diminish the challenge of integrating them into a coherent model of abiogenesis. The fact remains that we still do not fully understand how life originated from matter. Regarding information transfer in terms of coherence or entanglement, it's about how particles can influence each other, affecting the outcome of chemical reactions. I am not an expert in this field, so I will refrain from delving deeper beyond my understanding of the research I've read. As for the holographic principle, it proposes that the universe might be described by information encoded in a two-dimensional surface, if I am correct. Thank you for the discussion.
m_m Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) Just now, exchemist said: You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering pseudo-mystical woolly nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define. I want to agree with you this time. Poor Luc Turpin doesn't know what he believes in ( and it's important) and wants to sit on two chairs. It's impossible. He doesn't understand, that scientists have verified everything to the inch, and one small change will ruin this verified system. Like in dominoes. But our modern world is build on this verification!! 12 hours ago, exchemist said: Consciousness ≠ life How do you know this? Is there any SCIENTIFIC definition of consciousness?? Edited January 21 by m_m
exchemist Posted January 21 Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: The goal of abiogenesis research is not to create life, but rather to understand how life could have emerged from non-living matter. While various approaches represent complementary pieces of the puzzle rather than failed alternatives, this does not diminish the challenge of integrating them into a coherent model of abiogenesis. The fact remains that we still do not fully understand how life originated from matter. Regarding information transfer in terms of coherence or entanglement, it's about how particles can influence each other, affecting the outcome of chemical reactions. I am not an expert in this field, so I will refrain from delving deeper beyond my understanding of the research I've read. As for the holographic principle, it proposes that the universe might be described by information encoded in a two-dimensional surface, if I am correct. Thank you for the discussion. Then why do you say things like "Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter"? Eh? You are now simply stating the obvious- that the problem is not solved - and insinuating that is evidence that a new approach, of some ill-defined sort, is needed. That does not follow at all. It is just a complex problem that will probably, I suspect, take another half century or so before we have a coherent model, or models. That is not a surprise to anyone with relevant biochemical knowledge. Obviously the full resources of the sciences will continue to be brought to bear on the topic, no doubt including quantum biology if and when appropriate. By the way, you have, I now notice, quite a track record on this forum of using creationist-style talking points as arguments. I am by no means the first to criticise you for it, it turns out. I find that interesting.
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 3 minutes ago, exchemist said: Then why do you say things like "Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter"? Eh? By the way, you have, I now notice, quite a track record on this forum of using creationist-style talking points as arguments. I am by no means the first to criticise you for it, it turns out. I find that interesting. You are right! I was not attentive and precise in my meaning. You are wrong! I am not a creationist.
m_m Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) If you are not creationist, you HAVE to accept what science tells you, or you don't understand modern science. Edited January 21 by m_m
swansont Posted January 21 Posted January 21 24 minutes ago, exchemist said: You are now simply stating the obvious- that the problem is not solved - and insinuating that is evidence that a new approach, of some ill-defined sort, is needed. And is a common theme across multiple topics, followed by insisting that this new approach incorporate methods beyond science.
Luc Turpin Posted January 21 Posted January 21 17 minutes ago, swansont said: And is a common theme across multiple topics, followed by insisting that this new approach incorporate methods beyond science. Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness.
zapatos Posted January 22 Posted January 22 40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness. You excel at stating the obvious but are less successful at selling a pig in a poke. 1
TheVat Posted January 22 Posted January 22 5 hours ago, exchemist said: "Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know? Let's be grateful he hasn't delved into cytoskeleton microtubules and their tubulin dimers as potentially containing qubits. Because bumbling down that rabbit burrow could mean never grasping the quantum decoherence problem and wandering for eternity in QM confusion. (like you know who, at you know where dot com) I compare it to continually checking Schrodinger's litter box and hoping it cleaned itself.
iNow Posted January 22 Posted January 22 It’s more Deepak Chopra than creationist IMO, but po-tay-toe po-tah-toe… six to one, half dozen to another.
exchemist Posted January 22 Posted January 22 3 hours ago, TheVat said: Let's be grateful he hasn't delved into cytoskeleton microtubules and their tubulin dimers as potentially containing qubits. Because bumbling down that rabbit burrow could mean never grasping the quantum decoherence problem and wandering for eternity in QM confusion. (like you know who, at you know where dot com) I compare it to continually checking Schrodinger's litter box and hoping it cleaned itself. Yes, the similarity to you know who had not escaped me.A feature they seem to have in common is this cargo cult attitude of elevating things they don’t understand into mysteries to justify some sort of obscurantist, cod-metaphysical construction, instead of putting in the hard yards of actually learning about the topic and applying an analytical, scientific approach to it. 3 hours ago, iNow said: It’s more Deepak Chopra than creationist IMO, but po-tay-toe po-tah-toe… six to one, half dozen to another. Fair point, though it is notable that the mischaracterisation of abiogenesis research is almost identical to the way the creationists do it. I was wondering if this quantum woo approach might be a Trojan Horse for ID, actually. Part of the ID shtick is to pretend it’s not about God, just something “intelligent”. This stuff about the holographic principle encoding information from the universe seemed to be edging in that direction.
exchemist Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (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 January 22 by exchemist
Luc Turpin Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (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 January 22 by Luc Turpin
dimreepr Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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???
Luc Turpin Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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!
exchemist Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (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 January 22 by exchemist 1
dimreepr Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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???
Luc Turpin Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (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 January 22 by Luc Turpin
Phi for All Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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.
dimreepr Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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...
swansont Posted January 22 Posted January 22 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?
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