Origin of Life

[Bthoth]

CO2 is not the cause of heat upon mass.

Are you a tin hatter that expects me to address global warming?

CO2

 

[Bthoth]

It's a bit daft to demand of someone what "causes heat", when heat is an end product of so many physical processes.

I get it. You have never observed such a comprehensive question.

Almost all forms of energy end up converted to heat eventually.

That's a joke right? Motion to elements is your heat but you have no idea what causes it?

It's obvious from what he or she has posted that @Pogo has a good grasp of thermodynamics.

Dont give a hoot. A monkey can comprehend thermodynamics.

Whereas this waffle of yours about "resonance" looks like woo to me, unless you are specifically referring to absorption of radiation by matter.

Of course 'woo' to the uneducated that do not maintain the phenomena of nature as relevant. For example: the earth's magnetosphere is based on em fields, not an ozone layer

Here is an example of how ignorant some are: the sun's solar wind, blows out H and O, all day and all night....... Why would it take billions of dollars to send space ships to the moon and mars to see if there is water there. It's all over the universe simply because of basic common sense knowing that stars are emitting the H O all day and night long.

 

[gnostic]

The answer does not lay in the chemistry. It lays in the possibilities and impossibilities that control the forces that control the chemistry. And so far we humans have no clue about that.

And what “forces” are those, PureX?

I hoped that you are not thinking it’s God, Creator or Designer? Because if you are, then you need to demonstrate that such entities exist at all, then you would have to demonstrate clear connections between that imaginary entity is controlling chemistry.

To date, no creationists have been able to demonstrate that their beliefs in invisible being controlling anything. It is all just personal beliefs in superstitions, and superstitions (eg the “God did it” or the “Designer did it” are superstitions) are based on utter ignorance and misplaced fear.

What do you think proteins and nucleic acids are made of?

They are made of molecules, molecules that are “biological“, but like every molecules, they can broken down into atoms. Hence, understanding cells require understanding biochemistry and molecular biology, but essentially biological molecules are all based on understanding chemistry.

And as to Abiogenesis, understanding chemistry, especially in the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are essential.

While James Tour is a chemist, he is not biologist, nor biochemist, so something like Abiogenesis would be outside of his area of expertise.

Abiogenesis is more than just about the origin of early life, it is also about the origins of biochemical molecules, such as amino acids in proteins, molecules in nucleotide (eg ribose or deoxyribose sugars, nucleobase molecules, phosphate group, etc) of nucleic acids. How they form in the first place, should provide insights as to how cells.

While Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is still based on our current understanding of molecular biology & biochemistry.

What I don’t understand why are you are so insistent in ignoring chemistry? And why are so insistent on some unnamed and unsubstantiated “forces”?

 

[gnostic]

There is evidence that suggest that possibility.
Like i explained previously

Evidence showed what theory is probable.

You haven’t explained anything, you have only made a bunch of unsubstantiated & unfounded assumptions/claims:

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

What exactly are those “forces” you are talking?

That’s not explanation, it is unspecific question that explains nothing what you’re on about.

How do you know that this unspecified “forces” as “…guided and not automatic and blind”?

You wrote “There is evidence that suggest the possibility”. If that were true, then where are your evidence?

You are claiming to have evidence, yet you’ve shown none. You are just making claims of there being evidence, but you have shown no evidence that such “forces” exist.

You are not being honest with your claims.

 

[Dimi95]

First of all , Happy Birthday

While James Tour is a chemist, he is not biologist, nor biochemist, so something like Abiogenesis would be outside of his area of expertise.

Abiogenesis is more than just about the origin of early life, it is also about the origins of biochemical molecules, such as amino acids in proteins, molecules in nucleotide (eg ribose or deoxyribose sugars, nucleobase molecules, phosphate group, etc) of nucleic acids. How they form in the first place, should provide insights as to how cells.

I don't know how i would connect what you said about Tour and the second part.
It just does not fit up.

The thing is that Tour talks about the same things that you stated.

Lee is a waste of time , but i would criticize Tour only for one thing - his absence in the Abiogenesis research.

 

[gnostic]

Of course 'woo' to the uneducated that do not maintain the phenomena of nature as relevant. For example: the earth's magnetosphere is based on em fields, not an ozone layer

You are making strawman arguments.

Who have claimed that ozone layer being the cause of Earth’s EM fields? Can you a single scientific source where someone is saying ozone layer being the source of Earth’s magnetic fields?

You are attacking strawman…blaming scientists for something they never say.

I don’t think you even understand where the magnetic fields are coming from.

The poles?

The Earth’s magnetic poles are only the outcome of the fields, not the actual source of the fields.

The source of the fields come from the Earth’s outer core, where molten iron and nickel flow in liquid form. The flow, or more precisely the convective current, of iron and nickel are what causing induction of magnetic fields. That’s what generating magnetic fields in the Earth’s dipole.

unless you can present sources about the ozone layer, you are merely making dishonest claims and bl someone else for your own invention.

 

[Dimi95]

What exactly are those “forces” you are talking?

I don't know how to understand your question , but whatever

Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection.

How do you know that this unspecified “forces” as “…guided and not automatic and blind”?

They have the ability to do so.
The things that survive don't survive just like that , they survive because they have the ability to do so.
We are not born with knowledge , we are born with the ability to learn what is knowledge.

Just because it is more simple to say 'automatic and blind'(to avoid more complex questions) does not mean that automatic and blind is neccessary true.
That is why is theory.

You wrote “There is evidence that suggest the possibility”. If that were true, then where are your evidence?

I made i mistake , it was not correctly stated , i apologize.

 

[Bthoth]

And what “forces” are those, PureX?

I hoped that you are not thinking it’s God, Creator or Designer? Because if you are, then you need to demonstrate that such entities exist at all, then you would have to demonstrate clear connections between that imaginary entity is controlling chemistry.

To date, no creationists have been able to demonstrate that their beliefs in invisible being controlling anything. It is all just personal beliefs in superstitions, and superstitions (eg the “God did it” or the “Designer did it” are superstitions) are based on utter ignorance and misplaced fear.

What do you think proteins and nucleic acids are made of?

They are made of molecules, molecules that are “biological“, but like every molecules, they can broken down into atoms. Hence, understanding cells require understanding biochemistry and molecular biology, but essentially biological molecules are all based on understanding chemistry.

And as to Abiogenesis, understanding chemistry, especially in the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are essential.

While James Tour is a chemist, he is not biologist, nor biochemist, so something like Abiogenesis would be outside of his area of expertise.

Abiogenesis is more than just about the origin of early life, it is also about the origins of biochemical molecules, such as amino acids in proteins, molecules in nucleotide (eg ribose or deoxyribose sugars, nucleobase molecules, phosphate group, etc) of nucleic acids. How they form in the first place, should provide insights as to how cells.

While Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is still based on our current understanding of molecular biology & biochemistry.

What I don’t understand why are you are so insistent in ignoring chemistry? And why are so insistent on some unnamed and unsubstantiated “forces”?

PureX has a point. The chemical model as written has many holes in it. Not that a magical outside force is causing life of molecules but that the abiogenesis modeling is still suspect based on the lack of scope of how the energy itself is progressing to enable a living system to operate on it's own accord.

I write "LIFE: intent to continue" and the folk on this very forum rip me apart, for the exact reason that i mentioned.

 

[Bthoth]

You are making strawman arguments.

No i am defending myself from the woo, that have no idea what they are writing.

Who have claimed that ozone layer being the cause of Earth’s EM fields? Can you a single scientific source where someone is saying ozone layer being the source of Earth’s magnetic fields?

No. I am having to defend myself from the random rubbish that the woo keep making.

You are attacking strawman…blaming scientists for something they never say.

OK, i used the method of the whackado. Sorry that i have had to lower my standards to expose the fools.

I don’t think you even understand where the magnetic fields are coming from.

There is one now.

The poles?

The Earth’s magnetic poles are only the outcome of the fields, not the actual source of the fields.

Thanks. Have you ever wound your own coils? Ever make a motor, transformer from scratch?

The source of the fields come from the Earth’s outer core, where molten iron and nickel flow in liquid form. The flow, or more precisely the convective current, of iron and nickel are what causing induction of magnetic fields. That’s what generating magnetic fields in the Earth’s dipole.

Do you know what causes the pole reversals?

unless you can present sources about the ozone layer, you are merely making dishonest claims and bl someone else for your own invention.

Just like you are about telling me about the magnetosphere. I point out that em fields exists on all mass whether detectable or not simply by the oscillation of the em upon that mass.

And i used the earth magnetophere as an example. Should i have used the sun and mentioned that the field of the sun extends well beyond the kuiper belt?

 

[gnostic]

Just because it is more simple to say 'automatic and blind'(to avoid more complex questions) does not mean that automatic and blind is neccessary true.

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

I am not advocating “automatic and blind” over ”guided”…nor vice versa, Dim95. I am the one advocating one side or the other, you are doing that.

And you are the one who is making such claim, without presenting a single evidence to support your claim.

I don't know how to understand your question , but whatever

I was asking for clarification.

You were unspecific as to what these “forces” are, Dim95.

Saying “forces” without specific is what causing my confusion as to what you mean by this.

In sciences, they explain a number of different forces, with explanations as to how such forces work for each one. In religions, they have their own ideas as to what forces exist, but they offered nothing but superstitions, not explanations.

you, on the other hand, being very vague. Hence, my question to be more specific as to which forces you are talking about.

my question to you was ask for some clarification to your vague claim.

 

[Dimi95]

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

I am not advocating “automatic and blind” over ”guided”…nor vice versa, Dim95. I am the one advocating one side or the other, you are doing that.

And you are the one who is making such claim, without presenting a single evidence to support your claim.

I apologized for making false statement.

It is not evidence based to advocate any of them.
Rather , i will rely on faith.

I was asking for clarification.

You were unspecific as to what these “forces” are, Dim95.

Saying “forces” without specific is what causing my confusion as to what you mean by this.

Ok , as soon as you asked , i answered.

In sciences, they explain a number of different forces, with explanations as to how such forces work for each one. In religions, they have their own ideas as to what forces exist, but they offered nothing but superstitions, not explanations.

But at some point as explained before , we come to talk about advocating based on evidence , and we can't do that in specific topics , so at the end you can just ignore it , or you can rely on faith.

Or Am i wrong?

you, on the other hand, being very vague. Hence, my question to be more specific as to which forces you are talking about.

my question to you was ask for some clarification to your vague claim.

I will learn to be more specific.

 

[YoursTrue]

I apologized for making false statement.

It is not evidence based to advocate any of them.
Rather , i will rely on faith.



Ok , as soon as you asked , i answered.


But at some point as explained before , we come to talk about advocating based on evidence , and we can't do that in specific topics , so at the end you can just ignore it , or you can rely on faith.

Or Am i wrong?


I will learn to be more specific.

OK, you offered some points I find very helpful (interesting). When you say you rely on faith, so do I, to a large extent, because I know and believe that God exists. OK, that is my belief. Do I KNOW in the scientific sense? I claim the apostle Paul as an example. Some thought he was crazy, out of his mind. Some didn't believe his account.

"And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” (Acts 24:26)

But when you say you rely on faith, I understand that. So do I. My faith is in God and His word, the Bible. What I also find interesting is that even though, according to the Bible, the Jews knew about deliverance from bondage in Egypt, many diverted their worship to other gods while they were living in Israel before the Romans desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem in the first century CE.
To me this means that it is NOT a fairy story or myth, but the truth. But that's me, it's obviously not everyone.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks. Have you ever wound your own coils? Ever make a motor, transformer from scratch?

For a motor, no.

For power amplifier, then yes, I have made a transformer before.

your points?

Do you know what causes the pole reversals?

I have no ideas what cause it, as I have not done any research on this phenomena.

What I do know is that they have occurred in the past, where the direction of polarity reversal are imprinted in ancient igneous rocks. So when they have occurred can be measured.

Ask @shunyadragon , as he is a geologist, so he might know more.

 

[Dimi95]

I claim the apostle Paul as an example. Some thought he was crazy, out of his mind. Some didn't believe his account.

You need to know how to handle History and to be consistent on what is Historically accurate and what is not , if you want any Atheist/Agnostic to ever consider your claim reasonable.

Yes , it requires faith also , but it is still hard to reject History, so speaking about History is the best way to talk with certain groups of people.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to know how to handle History and to be consistent on what is Historically accurate and what is not , if you want any Atheist/Agnostic to ever consider your claim reasonable.

Yes , it requires faith also , but it is still hard to reject History, so speaking about History is the best way to talk with certain groups of people.

I honestly did not need a historian to certify what the Bible says. Although I know there are certain writings and/or artifacts that support what is written. I had a Bible in the house before I became a Christian, I did not understand it at all, and for a long time I said I did not believe in God because of all the riffraff I saw around me. As I have stated, I often was in a church as a paid church singer, heard the sermons, never believed a word of it. Until the time came that I finally prayed. The song "Amazing Grace" is one I love because I think it applies to me -- I love it. Even if the person singing it might not believe in God, still the song is close to my heart. God saved a wretch like me...I like the following version --

 

[shunyadragon]

For a motor, no.

For power amplifier, then yes, I have made a transformer before.

your points?



I have no ideas what cause it, as I have not done any research on this phenomena.

What I do know is that they have occurred in the past, where the direction of polarity reversal are imprinted in ancient igneous rocks. So when they have occurred can be measured.

Ask @shunyadragon , as he is a geologist, so he might know more.

Yes we know how the poles reverse on a roughly predictable but not truely periodic cyclic pattern. The strength of the polarity has been measured predictably toward a reversal likely since the 1800s with some measurements back to ~1500-1600.

The nature of the polarity of the earth is due to the iron core.The magnetic properties of the core are changing all the time because it is basically molten globe with a somewhat harder second core. The poles wander, change in strength and flip, because the core is in constant flux.

Magnetic Reversals

As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals occurred. Reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average reversal interval.

​

​

 

[Bthoth]

For a motor, no.

For power amplifier, then yes, I have made a transformer before.

your points?

So you must understand the fields as that is what is causing the transforming.

I have no ideas what cause it, as I have not done any research on this phenomena.

What I do know is that they have occurred in the past, where the direction of polarity reversal are imprinted in ancient igneous rocks. So when they have occurred can be measured.

The basalts. And yes about every 600k years.

Ask @shunyadragon , as he is a geologist, so he might know more.

I think he posted above

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for that link...enjoyed a bit of the discussion...the best contributions were from neither Cronin nor Tour who seemed to be most concerned about outscoring each other in a more-or-less-politely-phrased insult competition. I think Larry Constantine made the most insightful remark about 2/3rds of the way in when he talked about Prigogine and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that's where the best clues as to the origin of life (and indeed complexity more generally) will emerge from.

It is indeed best to dump the opening debate reference and deal with the actual science of abiogenesis. The present knowledge is indeed incomplete, but there is a great deal of knowledge concerning the ground work on where and how abiogenesis likely took place,

There has been a lot of discussion on the question of thermodynamics and entropy concerning abiogenesis. This question is an easy one. The energy source of most life is simple sugars in the chain of life, but for the earliest pre-iife and the earliest life forms the source of the energy and nutrients was most likely the internal heat of the earth in the hydrothermal vents near the volcanic spreading zones of the formation of ocean floor. This where the earliest simplist life forms are found in the rocks formed in these rocks 3.5 billion years old. continental drift began ~3.7-4.0 billion years ago, Abiogenesis is environment driven just as evolution, The first life appeared when the first ideal environment appeared on earth. We have abundant evidence that the basic building blocks existed. We will not likely have fossil evidence of the very earliest life forms, but we are finding the evidence of the earliest single celled organisms. The current direction of the research is one of the processes non-living organics became the earliest life. Some of the most interesting research is how replication can take place among early organic chemicals before life formed,

I may cite some ot the recent research, but it is somewhat technical. I will try to answer questions and relate my answers to possible references of current research,