Gap between life and non-life (split from What if god...)

[Luc Turpin]

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.

[dimreepr]

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... 😇 

[Luc Turpin]

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.

[dimreepr]

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... 🙄 

[Phi for All]

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

[swansont]

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.

[Luc Turpin]

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.

 

[swansont]

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.

[exchemist]

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 January 23 by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

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.

[swansont]

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. 

[TheVat]

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...

 

[Luc Turpin]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Genady]

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.

[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 January 24 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 January 24 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.