• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The problem remains . . .
1) You have an ancient tribal religious agenda that rejects any possibility if evolution, abiogenesis or for that matter modern physics and cosmology from the beginning.
2) You have no knowledge of the science involved with evolution or abiogenesis. You misuse basic science vocabulary and selectively misrepresent scientific literature
3) you fail to respond to references as to what is scientific evidence.

In terms of the rules and ethics of Logic


The Appeal to the Stone Fallacy: When People Are Dismissive During Discussions​

Appeal to the Stone


The appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person dismisses their opponent’s argument as absurd, without actually addressing it, or without providing sufficient evidence in order to prove its absurdity. For example, a person using the appeal to the stone in a debate might simply laugh off all of their opponent’s claims and calls them ridiculous, with no justification.

Sorry, left off the moss.
1695740755366.png


Hmm , sorry. I guess I could not be of any help either. It does appear that a Rolling Stone gathers no moss. Not even these ancient ones.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Many fundamentalist Christians consider Urey-Miller experiments rigged, false or whatever wrong, failing to realize the Amino Acids necessary for life are ubiquitous to our universe. Nonetheless the Urey-Miller experiments and later improved experiments are still indeed valid.


Building Blocks of RNA Spotted at the Center of the Milky Way​

The finding could add credence to the 'RNA world' hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth.​

By
Isaac Schultz
PublishedJuly 8, 2022

Comments (4)


A wispy red molecular cloud in the Milky Way.

Molecular cloud Cepheus B. Building blocks of RNA were detected in another molecular cloud.Image: X-ray: NASA/CXC/PSU/K. Getman et al.; IRL NASA/JPL-Caltech/CfA/J. Wang et al.
A team of researchers say they’ve found some building blocks of RNA in a molecular cloud close to the center of the Milky Way. The discovery has implications for theories about how life began on Earth—and perhaps elsewhere.

The molecular cloud is named G+0.693-0.027. The team of astrophysicists, astrobiologists, and chemists conducted a survey of the cloud using two telescopes in Spain to unpack details of its chemistry.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Creationist is a term used to describe science deniers. A couple of things that they have in common. None of them have a working model for creationism and none of them have any scientific evidence for their beliefs. Since they do not follow the scientific method one cannot call them scientists, what do you propose that they be called?
Hydrothermal vents are places in the seafloor where warm water from under the Earth's crust mixes with near-freezing seawater. These vents form natural chimneys, which play host to all kinds of ocean life. Image Credit: MARUM/University of Bremen/NOAA-Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Hydrothermal vents may also explain natural climate change, since they add heat to the oceans and the warmer oceans release CO2.; bottom up model of climate change.

One possible problem with this hydrothermal vent life theory is how these organism have sort of stalled and did not evolve very far into complex ecosystems, with a variety of connected life, like in others places on earth. These other places made better Petri dishes, as inferred by them able to build further and faster on their foundation. Places like Iceland, which have hydrothermal vents closer to the surface, also have more surface options. The earth had more surface vents and surface heat billion years ago, as the crust was elevating and in motion.

One problem that only an applied scientist may see, that may be occurring in the evolutionary sciences, is connected to applied science magic tricks. For example, diamonds are assume to formed under heat and pressure over millions of years. The change is assumed to be slow and steady like in evolution. However, diamonds can also be made in the lab using an anvil press and high heat, in only a few days.

To demonstrate the magic of applied science, if applied to pure science, let me theorize that natural diamonds form fast, such as due to crustal shifts near active volcanoes. You end up with heat and leveraged pressure points. I can buy an anvil press in the lab and make quickie diamonds to simulate this natural theory. As far as I know, nobody has ever did million year diamond experiments to prove that theory. Does my ability to contrive a trick to prove my theory with data, make me right, as a pure scientist? If I say I am an applied scientists saving time, and not try to claim, pure, the magic is really just a useful contrive.

People have theories, and use lab equipment, not found in nature, to simulate nature. This how you can grow diamonds fast. If you assume it took abiogenesis millions of years of random changes, how do you do that in the lab on a one year grant? This can be done with applied science magic,called natural; good as the real thing.

This does not even include casino science and math. When casino math is used in factories, it can help the QC Engineers reduce the number of defects; improve quality control. If we apply this to a pure science theory test in a lab, we may reduce the natural randomness, that we also assume is behind nature, for a more accelerated outcome. Have more perfect widgets, for a happy factory QC result.

I like science, but I am an applied scientist; build a better mouse trap.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Hydrothermal vents may also explain natural climate change, since they add heat to the oceans and the warmer oceans release CO2.; bottom up model of climate change.

One possible problem with this hydrothermal vent life theory is how these organism have sort of stalled and did not evolve very far into complex ecosystems, with a variety of connected life, like in others places on earth. These other places made better Petri dishes, as inferred by them able to build further and faster on their foundation. Places like Iceland, which have hydrothermal vents closer to the surface, also have more surface options. The earth had more surface vents and surface heat billion years ago, as the crust was elevating and in motion.

One problem that only an applied scientist may see, that may be occurring in the evolutionary sciences, is connected to applied science magic tricks. For example, diamonds are assume to formed under heat and pressure over millions of years. The change is assumed to be slow and steady like in evolution. However, diamonds can also be made in the lab using an anvil press and high heat, in only a few days.

To demonstrate the magic of applied science, if applied to pure science, let me theorize that natural diamonds form fast, such as due to crustal shifts near active volcanoes. You end up with heat and leveraged pressure points. I can buy an anvil press in the lab and make quickie diamonds to simulate this natural theory. As far as I know, nobody has ever did million year diamond experiments to prove that theory. Does my ability to contrive a trick to prove my theory with data, make me right, as a pure scientist? If I say I am an applied scientists saving time, and not try to claim, pure, the magic is really just a useful contrive.

People have theories, and use lab equipment, not found in nature, to simulate nature. This how you can grow diamonds fast. If you assume it took abiogenesis millions of years of random changes, how do you do that in the lab on a one year grant? This can be done with applied science magic,called natural; good as the real thing.

This does not even include casino science and math. When casino math is used in factories, it can help the QC Engineers reduce the number of defects; improve quality control. If we apply this to a pure science theory test in a lab, we may reduce the natural randomness, that we also assume is behind nature, for a more accelerated outcome. Have more perfect widgets, for a happy factory QC result.

I like science, but I am an applied scientist; build a better mouse trap.
Will reply more later
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Hydrothermal vents may also explain natural climate change, since they add heat to the oceans and the warmer oceans release CO2.; bottom up model of climate change.

No, not the present trend in climate change. CO2 from hydrothermal vents has been a part of the natural stable cycle of CO2 in the Oceans for billions of years. Other factors in geologic history have influenced CO2 in the Oceans and atmosphere on a geologic scale such as extreme volcanic activities millions of years ago. Yes, there are natural cycles of global warming and cooling not related to human activity. If it were not for human influence on climate change we would be in a cooling trend.

The rise in CO2 in recent times is directly related human output of global warming gases.
One possible problem with this hydrothermal vent life theory is how these organism have sort of stalled and did not evolve very far into complex ecosystems, with a variety of connected life, like in others places on earth. These other places made better Petri dishes, as inferred by them able to build further and faster on their foundation. Places like Iceland, which have hydrothermal vents closer to the surface, also have more surface options. The earth had more surface vents and surface heat billion years ago, as the crust was elevating and in motion.

The above does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the history of life after abiogenesis. The present evidence is life arose in the volcanic vents and spread throughout the volcanic vent network around the world and yes diversified and evolved. Once life was established further evolution was dependent on the environment changes. Oxygen was too low for aerobic life so anaerobic life thrived and produced what we call stromatolite deposits. Over the millennia the anaerobic organisms produced enough Oxygen for the aerobic organisms to replace the anaerobic organisms as the dominant life, and the changes in the environment drove life on Earth from then on.

Your statement "The earth had more surface vents and surface heat billion years ago, as the crust was elevating and in motion." needs clarification. Once continental drift began the ocean floor spread at the rift zones and gradually continents formed and mountains grew in uplift. The Ocean rift system has been relatively stable and consistent for billions of years with continents forming moving apart and colliding forming mountain ranges.

At the time continental drift began the ocean floor was volcanic with some volcanic islands and very little land. There were no mountain ranges nor deep trenches in the oceans the topography was very flat.
One problem that only an applied scientist may see, that may be occurring in the evolutionary sciences, is connected to applied science magic tricks. For example, diamonds are assume to formed under heat and pressure over millions of years. The change is assumed to be slow and steady like in evolution. However, diamonds can also be made in the lab using an anvil press and high heat, in only a few days.

Actually, diamonds do form rapidly naturally occurring conditions deep in ancient volcanic vents with the right pressure and temperature. Absolutely nothing to do with the abiogenesis of evolution.

Today diamonds are continually forming in Uranus and Neptune.

To demonstrate the magic of applied science, if applied to pure science, let me theorize that natural diamonds form fast, such as due to crustal shifts near active volcanoes. You end up with heat and leveraged pressure points. I can buy an anvil press in the lab and make quickie diamonds to simulate this natural theory. As far as I know, nobody has ever did million year diamond experiments to prove that theory. Does my ability to contrive a trick to prove my theory with data, make me right, as a pure scientist? If I say I am an applied scientists saving time, and not try to claim, pure, the magic is really just a useful contrive.
Million-year diamond experiment is not necessary, because diamonds do form for the most part quickly under natural conditions,

Magic is not necessary. but many theist claims magic may be helpful in explaining somethings.

This does not even include casino science and math. When casino math is used in factories, it can help the QC Engineers reduce the number of defects; improve quality control. If we apply this to a pure science theory test in a lab, we may reduce the natural randomness, that we also assume is behind nature, for a more accelerated outcome. Have more perfect widgets, for a happy factory QC result.

You need to still define this odd non-science term 'casino math.' By the way the term is not used in standard science or math. or applied science
I like science, but I am an applied scientist; build a better mouse trap.
Good luck. Mouse traps do not evolve.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
New discoveries about natural Peptide formation an important step RNA/DNA formation. The simplicity of the solution is amazing.

Scientists Made a Breakthrough on Life’s Origin and It Could Change Everything​


A new study shows that ingredients for life can form from non-living chemicals on any given beach, and it could help develop new drugs and search for alien life.
y Becky Ferreira
October 3, 2022, 3:39pm

Scientists have achieved a major breakthrough toward unraveling the mystery of how life first arose on Earth and whether it might exist elsewhere in the universe, reports a new study.

A longstanding mystery—perhaps the mystery, existentially speaking—is how life originated from non-living, or abiotic, chemicals. For the first time ever, researchers at Purdue University have shown that peptides, which are strings of amino acids that are crucial building blocks of life, can spontaneously form in droplets of water during rapid reactions that occur when water meets the atmosphere—for example, when a wave hits a rock and throws up a misty spray. This could occur in conditions similar to those that existed on Earth some 4 billion years ago, when life first took hold on our planet.
You may also like

The discovery provides “a plausible route for the formation of the first biopolymers,” which are complex structures produced by living organisms, according to a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The team says the discovery could even speed up the development of novel drugs and medical treatments by providing a new medium for fostering rapid chemical reactions.
“There are a very large number of studies showing peptide formation, but they all use catalysts or modified amino acids to make species unlikely to exist naturally,” said R. Graham Cooks, who serves as the Henry B. Hass Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry at Purdue and senior author of the study, in an email.

Cooks and his colleagues have now shown that peptides readily form in the kinds of chemical systems that existed on ancient Earth, such as sea spray from our planet’s primordial oceans or freshwater dribbling down slopes.

“The most interesting implication is that similar chemistry explains other essential biological polymers, not just peptides,” he noted, adding that his team plans to publish more on this topic soon.

In other words, the new study has opened a rare window into the murky early years on our planet when nonliving compounds somehow assembled themselves into living organisms, a still-unexplained transformation known as abiogenesis. The formation of peptides is an important step in abiogenesis because these structures form the basis of biomolecules such as proteins, which can perform the self-replicating mechanisms that are necessary for life.

The team was able to reconstruct the possible formation of these peptides by running “droplet fusion” experiments that simulate how water droplets collide in the air, which Cooks described as “like two kids with garden hoses spraying each other.”
These experiments show that the surface of the droplets, where water meets air, is a region that can be exceptionally productive at spinning peptides out of the types of amino acids that have been delivered to Earth by meteorites for billions of years. As a result, the experiments offer a possible solution to what’s known as the “water paradox,” a problem that has puzzled scientists in the abiogenesis field for years.
“The water paradox is the contradiction between (i) the very considerable evidence that the chemical reactions leading to life occurred in the prebiotic ocean and (ii) the thermodynamic constraint against exactly these (water loss) reactions occurring in water,” Cooks explained. “Proteins are formed from amino acids by loss of water” and “loss of water in water will not occur because the process will be reversed by the water (thermodynamically forbidden).”
Put another way, peptides need some level of dehydration to form, but that is very hard to accomplish in a hydrated environment like a water droplet. For more than a decade, Cooks and his colleagues have shown that microdroplets have many unique characteristics, including an accelerated reactivity at their surfaces. These air-water interfaces are like a reverse oasis—that is, a dry refuge in the watery world of a droplet—that enables the loss-of-water reactions needed to build peptides out of amino acids.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That evidence is there.

FYI, it’s how the evidence is interpreted.

For instance, when scientists find organisms of different phenotypes that have the same genes, materialistic scientists claim the genes are ‘shared through inheritance’.

What they don’t consider is that the Creator could have created / duplicated those same genes, utilizing them in different body plans, ie., “according to their kinds.”

But this is an abiogenesis thread, not one on evolution.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
FYI, I t’s how the evidence is interpreted.

For instance, when scientists find organisms of different phenotypes that have the same genes, materialistic scientists claim the genes are ‘shared through inheritance’.

What they don’t consider is that the Creator could have created / duplicated those same genes, utilizing them in different body plans, ie., “according to their kinds.”

But this is an abiogenesis thread, not one on evolution.
Why can't they consider that Zeus rained down and took the form of mighty bull and the similarity of the genes is due to Zeus. Or how about Odin? It could be the hive mind of Beta Tau Epsilon in the Manduca cluster? If scientists can just throw in whatever one or the other wants to believe without evidence, why limit it to one unevidenced source?

How about the ghost of alien Bigfoot?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Why can't they consider that Zeus rained down and took the form of mighty bull and the similarity of the genes is due to Zeus. Or how about Odin? I the hive mind of Beta Tau Epsilon in the Manduca cluster? If scientists can just throw in whatever one or the other wants to believe without evidence, why limit it to one unevidenced source?

How about the ghost of alien Bigfoot?
My God is Jesus’ Father….
Yours?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That evidence is there. You have been presented with pieces of it. If you truly want to know more, take a course such as the ones offered here 60+ Free Online Courses on Evolutionary Science But to even begin to learn that answer you need to learn how science works. How science works - Understanding Science is a place to start.

Scientists think that they should seek to understand how the world works and that science is the tool to accomplish that goal. Scientists think that knowledge is better than ignorance. Scientists know that the tools we use today such as cellphones and computers are the products of science. Don't like science? Then throw away all the products of science and that's everything today and go live in the tall grass with a spear and an animal hide loincloth.
I'm going to learn that genes evolved to become other types of organisms perhaps based on natural selection and survival of the fittest and that there is no doubt that fish evolved upon millions of years to become humans. And as said, there is no proof in science.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member

This was published after your “pair of experiments” thread.

No takers yet.
So, once again, your best evidence is some fringey nothing biased site that proposes a God of the gaps. We don't know, so it must be God by default to the exclusion of all other beliefs based solely on the belief of those proposing the gap argument.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
My God is Jesus’ Father….
Yours?
There we go with the attack on Christians. I wouldn't expect less or that you might actually answer the question. I had hoped.

As a Christian I forgive your ignorance and venom.

You have a wonderful evening.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
FYI, I t’s how the evidence is interpreted.

For instance, when scientists find organisms of different phenotypes that have the same genes, materialistic scientists claim the genes are ‘shared through inheritance’.

What they don’t consider is that the Creator could have created / duplicated those same genes, utilizing them in different body plans, ie., “according to their kinds.”

But this is an abiogenesis thread, not one on evolution.
To even have evidence on must have a testable hypothesis. That means if you want claim that observations are evidence to support creationism you have to have a model that explains creationism and can be refuted based upon the predictions that it makes.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Why can't they consider that Zeus rained down and took the form of mighty bull and the similarity of the genes is due to Zeus. Or how about Odin? It could be the hive mind of Beta Tau Epsilon in the Manduca cluster? If scientists can just throw in whatever one or the other wants to believe without evidence, why limit it to one unevidenced source?

How about the ghost of alien Bigfoot?
Actually, it’s not about which god did it….
It’s about the extreme complexity of the cells of these organisms. Even the simplest. Such integrated, purposeful cooperation within & between the cells, required an intellect.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That evidence is there. You have been presented with pieces of it. If you truly want to know more, take a course such as the ones offered here 60+ Free Online Courses on Evolutionary Science But to even begin to learn that answer you need to learn how science works. How science works - Understanding Science is a place to start.

Scientists think that they should seek to understand how the world works and that science is the tool to accomplish that goal. Scientists think that knowledge is better than ignorance. Scientists know that the tools we use today such as cellphones and computers are the products of science. Don't like science? Then throw away all the products of science and that's everything today and go live in the tall grass with a spear and an animal hide loincloth.
This is where the idea of me being a science denier is wrong. Meantime, though, speaking of tall grass, gorillas do not make clothes for themselves. And only humans have the ability to develop writing skills plus preserving history. As one astronaut said, A giant leap...:)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually, it’s not about which god did it….
It’s about the extreme complexity of the cells of these organisms. Even the simplest. Such integrated, purposeful cooperation within & between the cells, required an intellect.
How are you going to demonstrate that claim? By the way, why do you think that the first life had to be complex?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is where the idea of me being a science denier is wrong. Meantime, though, speaking of tall grass, gorillas do not make clothes for themselves. And only humans have the ability to develop writing skills plus preserving history. As one astronaut said, A giant leap...:)
You start out claiming not to be a science denier. And then you end your post with an argument that indicates that you are a science denier. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Top