Abiogenesis discoveries and research

[Dan From Smithville]

You didn’t answer my question: how simple was the first cell? Basic requirements.

You didn't apologize. I didn't expect it, but I should.

If I can't answer does that mean that the science of abiogenesis collapses. How many questions have I asked you only to get a run around? Hmmm?

I don't know. That is my answer. I don't know. I don't expect, as you have been alluding that they would be as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Do you have evidence that confounds that expectation? It's a question and you have shown that you expect questions to be answered. So?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what did I say? “Even the simplest.”
How “simple” was it?

You have a wonderful rest of your evening.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If some Christians claim their faith is so strong and fully in God, then why do you think it appears as if they are deifying the Bible…?

Who is “they”? I don’t know about “deifying the Bible”, but Christians should respect it as God’s word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17. What other book teaches Christians about Christ & his Father Jehovah? There’s no other.

….and why do they seem so frightened of science if they believe they hold the superior position?

Who seems “frightened of science”? Not me. Though I’m saddened by how science is wedded to materialism.

Isaac Newton wasn’t. Was he not a scientist?

Neither is Hugh Ross, nor Doug Axe, nor Stephen Meyer, etc., etc. Are they not scientists?

Do you think some of them are forced to out of fear of being shunned by their chosen groups?

As far as JW’s are concerned, there are many every year, who stop associating with us. The reasons? Who knows. But we don’t shun them.

And this is off-topic. If you wish to pursue this in another thread, tag me.

Goodnight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't apologize. I didn't expect it, but I should.

If I can't answer does that mean that the science of abiogenesis collapses. How many questions have I asked you only to get a run around? Hmmm?

I don't know. That is my answer. I don't know. I don't expect, as you have been alluding that they would be as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Do you have evidence that confounds that expectation? It's a question and you have shown that you expect questions to be answered. So?

Since I was only marginally more polite to him than he is to others he appears to have me on ignore again. Oh well, his loss. I have him an answer.

And I need to add that I get so disgusted with the remark "Same evidence different interpretation". One cannot claim to have evidence without a proper hypothesis. Creationists got tired of having their donkeys handed to them every time that they tried to form a testable hypothesis. The last that I am aware of was Behe when he first proposed Irreducible Complexity and it was quickly refuted. He redefined it so that it is pseudoscience now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as JW’s are concerned, there are many every year, who stop associating with us. The reasons? Who knows. But we don’t shun them.

Shunning from the Jehovah’s Witness Community: Is It Legal? | Journal of Law and Religion | Cambridge Core

Shunning from the Jehovah’s Witness Community: Is It Legal? - Volume 38 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

What Happens to Those Who Exit Jehovah’s Witnesses: An Investigation of the Impact of Shunning - PMC

Shunning and ostracism have severe impacts on individuals’ psychological and social well-being. Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses are subject to shunning when they do not comply with the stated doctrine or belief system. To investigate the effects of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hockeycowboy]

….badgered and belittled me…

How?
How did I do this? All I did, was ask you questions. Which I hoped would raise your through-provoking faculties.

It wasn’t done to upset you. I’m sorry for that.

But it was a little frustrating: you know where I stand on God’s part of creation, but I don’t know yours.


And it is late… Goodnight, my cousin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who is “they”? I don’t know about “deifying the Bible”, but Christians should respect it as God’s word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17. What other book teaches Christians about Christ & his Father Jehovah? There’s no other.

I was clear on who they are.

Who seems “frightened of science”? Not me. Though I’m saddened by how science is wedded to materialism.

Isaac Newton wasn’t. Was he not a scientist?

Neither is Hugh Ross, nor Doug Axe, nor Stephen Meyer, etc., etc. Are they not scientists?

Nice job quote mining me and creating a straw man to avoid the question I asked. By the way, Meyer is not a scientist.

As far as JW’s are concerned, there are many every year, who stop associating with us. The reasons? Who knows. But we don’t shun them.

Again, an answer to a question I didn't ask. This the sort of thing I've come to expect. It doesn't fit with the view of Christianity I was raised with. When I don't know or can't come up with an answer, I say so. I did it in this thread already this evening. It is pretty easy to do.

And this is off-topic. If you wish to pursue this in another thread, tag me.

Goodnight.

No. It don't think it is off topic and I got the answer I expected.

You have a good night too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How?
How did I do this? All I did, was ask you questions. Which I hoped would raise your through-provoking faculties.

It wasn’t done to upset you. I’m sorry for that.

But it was a little frustrating: you know where I stand on God’s part of creation, but I don’t know yours.


And it is late… Goodnight, my cousin.

I thought you had already gone good night.

What I believe is what I have said and irrelevant to your ability to refute the science that is under discussion. I often am amused at the direction taken regarding that. Discussing the context of questions involving yours and JW's views is deemed off topic, but discussing my personal views is alleged as critical to your ability to respond to questions regarding science. How amazing is that? I had no idea that the argument was so one-sided against me while having the power to somehow inhibit your responses to those questions. It is a perplexing duality.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's God of the gaps argument from ignorance. Just because you want it to mean something doesn't make that so.

The science continues to advance. Tour isn't the benchmark to measure that advance. It is meaningless showboating that doesn't present anything that supports creationist own views or detracts from the achievements that continue to be made. It is just more of the "we got nothing, so let's attack science".

It's not ignorance when realizing the gaps do not explain themselves. Because there are gaps, even if one figures fish evolved from water-dwellers to land-dwellers and then humans. Big gaps. The explanation that it took millions of years does not mean that's how it happened. It is also not denying science to recognize and acknowledge that there is no evidence to show exactly how things as postulated to have evolved actually did evolve, and that from the beginning. In fact, to admit one doesn't really know is being truthful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not ignorance when realizing the gaps do not explain themselves. Because there are gaps, even if one figures fish evolved from water-dwellers to land-dwellers and then humans. Big gaps. The explanation that it took millions of years does not mean that's how it happened. It is also not denying science to recognize and acknowledge that there is no evidence to show exactly how things as postulated to have evolved actually did evolve, and that from the beginning. In fact, to admit one doesn't really know is being truthful.

You are ranting and not making any sense again.

Tell us what you do not understand about evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously things were introduced into the experiment. "In our study, we tried adding another simple molecule called cyanamide to the formose reaction. In order for some molecules to produce ribonucleotides, it was necessarily orchestrated by human hands introducing other elements.

Actually only known chemistry at the time life formed is used in the environments where life first formed. Nothing was not added that was not present at the time the first life formed. You need to understand the entire research only the environment of the hydrothermal vents is used in the research.

 

[shunyadragon]

You didn’t answer my question: how simple was the first cell? Basic requirements.

You repeated refer to gaps? in scientific knowledge to justify your religious agenda, and not address the advances in science that fill the gaps. Arguing from ignorance of the present scientific knowledge is not logically a coherent argument.

For example: Even though the chemistry of Peptide formation has been known fro many years it was not previously known how peptides could form without living organisms. The research cited above discovered how peptides form in a natural environment without life.

The simplist life was simple RNA organisms that could replicate. At the hydrothermal vents they used the heat for energy and the abundant nutrient to survive.

We’ve been wrong about the origins of life for 90 years

New research suggests the “primordial soup” theory can’t explain how living cells evolved to harness energy.

theconversation.com

For nearly nine decades, science’s favorite explanation for the origin of life has been the “primordial soup”. This is the idea that life began from a series of chemical reactions in a warm pond on Earth’s surface, triggered by an external energy source such as lightning strike or ultraviolet (UV) light. But recent research adds weight to an alternative idea, that life arose deep in the ocean within warm, rocky structures called hydrothermal vents.

A study published last month in Nature Microbiology suggests the last common ancestor of all living cells fed on hydrogen gas in a hot iron-rich environment, much like that within the vents. Advocates of the conventional theory have been sceptical that these findings should change our view of the origins of life. But the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, which is often described as exotic and controversial, explains how living cells evolved the ability to obtain energy, in a way that just wouldn’t have been possible in a primordial soup.

Under the conventional theory, life supposedly began when lightning or UV rays caused simple molecules to join together into more complex compounds. This culminated in the creation of information-storing molecules similar to our own DNA, housed within the protective bubbles of primitive cells. Laboratory experiments confirm that trace amounts of molecular building blocks that make up proteins and information-storing molecules can indeed be created under these conditions. For many, the primordial soup has become the most plausible environment for the origin of first living cells.

But life isn’t just about replicating information stored within DNA. All living things have to reproduce in order to survive, but replicating the DNA, assembling new proteins and building cells from scratch require tremendous amounts of energy. At the core of life are the mechanisms of obtaining energy from the environment, storing and continuously channelling it into cells’ key metabolic reactions.

Did life evolve around deep-sea hydrothermal vents? U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Wikimedia Commons​

Where this energy comes from and how it gets there can tell us a whole lot about the universal principles governing life’s evolution and origin. Recent studies increasingly suggest that the primordial soup was not the right kind of environment to drive the energetics of the first living cells.

It’s classic textbook knowledge that all life on Earth is powered by energy supplied by the sun and captured by plants, or extracted from simple compounds such as hydrogen or methane. Far less known is the fact that all life harnesses this energy in the same and quite peculiar way.

This process works a bit like a hydroelectric dam. Instead of directly powering their core metabolic reactions, cells use energy from food to pump protons (positively charged hydrogen atoms) into a reservoir behind a biological membrane. This creates what is known as a “concentration gradient” with a higher concentration of protons on one side of the membrane than other. The protons then flow back through molecular turbines embedded within the membrane, like water flowing through a dam. This generates high-energy compounds that are then used to power the rest of cell’s activities.

Life could have evolved to exploit any of the countless energy sources available on Earth, from heat or electrical discharges to naturally radioactive ores. Instead, all life forms are driven by proton concentration differences across cells’ membranes. This suggests that the earliest living cells harvested energy in a similar way and that life itself arose in an environment in which proton gradients were the most accessible power source.

Vent hypothesis​

Recent studies based on sets of genes that were likely to have been present within the first living cells trace the origin of life back to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. These are porous geological structures produced by chemical reactions between solid rock and water. Alkaline fluids from the Earth’s crust flow up the vent towards the more acidic ocean water, creating natural proton concentration differences remarkably similar to those powering all living cells.

The studies suggest that in the earliest stages of life’s evolution, chemical reactions in primitive cells were likely driven by these non-biological proton gradients. Cells then later learned how to produce their own gradients and escaped the vents to colonise the rest of the ocean and eventually the planet.

While proponents of the primordial soup theory argue that electrostatic discharges or the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation drove life’s first chemical reactions, modern life is not powered by any of these volatile energy sources. Instead, at the core of life’s energy production are ion gradients across biological membranes. Nothing even remotely similar could have emerged within the warm ponds of primeval broth on Earth’s surface. In these environments, chemical compounds and charged particles tend to get evenly diluted instead of forming gradients or non-equilibrium states that are so central to life.

Deep-sea hydrothermal vents represent the only known environment that could have created complex organic molecules with the same kind of energy-harnessing machinery as modern cells. Seeking the origins of life in the primordial soup made sense when little was known about the universal principles of life’s energetics. But as our knowledge expands, it is time to embrace alternative hypotheses that recognise the importance of the energy flux driving the first biochemical reactions. These theories seamlessly bridge the gap between the energetics of living cells and non-living molecules.

A significant part of the problem is you lack the knowledge of Organic Chemistry, which is why you are unable to respond to the discoveries and advances in the research covered in this thread,

 

[shunyadragon]

I looked at it even before you mentioned it.
And by the way, your regular sarcasm and jokes about those who do not believe in evolution as you do is noted by some. And enjoyed by others, isn't it?
Insofar as the theory of abiogenesis maybe/kind of having been postulated to have come from non-living things -- does not prove that's how life came about -- it does not mean life came about by itself as a chance occurrence as if that's how it all started.

The reason for the sarcasm and jokes is that you fail to acknowledge the increasing knowledge and evidence in support the sciences of abiogenesis and present a logical rational argument based on the evidence and perpetually assert gaps and arguing from ignorance to support your religious agenda without evidence, The research and discoveries cited in these articles are filling the gaps.

It is true in all humility science uses conditional language as their knowledge changes and increases when they make new discoveries and research, because science does not deal with absolutes to know things as you assert based on a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

How?
How did I do this? All I did, was ask you questions. Which I hoped would raise your through-provoking faculties.

It wasn’t done to upset you. I’m sorry for that.

But it was a little frustrating: you know where I stand on God’s part of creation, but I don’t know yours.


And it is late… Goodnight, my cousin.

The beliefs of @Subduction Zone concerning the existence of God are abundantly clear for a long time I don't understand your confusion concerning what his beliefs are.

To add, I have made it clear my beliefs in God Creating the Natural Laws and natural processes for life to begin and evolve by the objective verifiable evidence of science. Actually those that do not believe in God like @Subduction Zone agree on the Natural Laws and natural processes demonstrated by science on how abiogenesis and evolution takes place. Neither my Theism and @Subduction Zone' atheism change the evidence that supports the sciences of natural abiogenesis and evolution.

The fact that the evidence for the sciences of abiogenesis is incomplete is a given as in all sciences and is not a problem in the advancing knowledge of science does indeed file the gaps over time.

 

[F1fan]

^^ Now *this*, is what is called a ‘closed mind’.

False. Being incorrect about science is NOT closed minded. Closed minded does NOT mean dumb, foolish, gullible. It means being open to facts and knowledge that counters dogma, and that means it applies to you. Anyone who rejects science due to religious belief IS closd minded.

Regarding your first statement,
Google “astrophysicist Hugh Ross”.

And “Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil”.

I’d post others, but I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others here will enjoy the information.

No, if you have an argument to make based on other people then you cite them and explain how it's relevant. You also have to explain how they are credible as experts. Don't be lazy.

BTW, where's your evidnce of a creator existing in reality? I'm still waiting. Until you do there is no alternative to abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

^^ Now *this*, is what is called a ‘closed mind’.

Regarding your first statement,
Google “astrophysicist Hugh Ross”.

And “Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil”.

I’d post others, but I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others here will enjoy the information.

You may cite a few more, but I can count all the scientists that reject the science of evolution and abiogenesis on my fingers and toes when the support by all the major universities and academic institutions as well as the overwhelming thousands of credentialed scientist support evolution and abiogenesis based over 160 years of discoveries and research.

Please note that some of the scientists you may cite do not have an academic background in the Biological sciences that support evolution and openly support a religious agenda.

 

[F1fan]

Who is “they”? I don’t know about “deifying the Bible”, but Christians should respect it as God’s word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17. What other book teaches Christians about Christ & his Father Jehovah? There’s no other.

As long as religious belief is left at the door when you learn about science. Otherwise religious belief can cause confusion and conflict, as we see in your posts.

Who seems “frightened of science”? Not me. Though I’m saddened by how science is wedded to materialism.

Why is that sad? Science can only deal with what is real. Science can't make assumptions that are not in evidence, so you seem to have a problem with the standard. Why?

Isaac Newton wasn’t. Was he not a scientist?

Neither is Hugh Ross, nor Doug Axe, nor Stephen Meyer, etc., etc. Are they not scientists?

Who cares. They still have to set their religious beliefs aside when doing work.

As far as JW’s are concerned, there are many every year, who stop associating with us. The reasons? Who knows. But we don’t shun them.

As I understand it JW's are quite rigid in their beliefs, and quite condemning of JW's who don't align rigidly to the ideology.

Some years ago I had neighbors who were JW and the wife was diagnised with cancer. She couldn't get blood transfusions so they did not follow the typical treatment of surgery and chemo. They ended up going out of town for some other type of treatment. It extended her life but they went bankrupt and lost their house.

I understand people get attached to their religious beliefs, but literalist dogma does not align with science, and I question the utility of belief when it ends up costing the believer their well-being. I think if JW's are leaving the religion for their own safety it is a good thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The beliefs of @Subduction Zone concerning the existence of God are abundantly clear for a long time I don't understand your confusion concerning what his beliefs are.

I do believe that he was talking about @Dan From Smithville 's beliefs. Dan is a Christian but he is a rational one. Or one that fundamentalists would say is "Not a true Christian" though when claiming that Christianity is the world's largest religions they are more than happy to count as being Christian.

To add, I have made it clear my beliefs in God Creating the Natural Laws and natural processes for life to begin and evolve by the objective verifiable evidence of science. Actually those that do not believe in God like @Subduction Zone agree on the Natural Laws and natural processes demonstrated by science on how abiogenesis and evolution takes place. Neither my Theism and @Subduction Zone' atheism change the evidence that supports the sciences of natural abiogenesis and evolution.

The fact that the evidence for the sciences of abiogenesis is incomplete is a given as in all sciences and is not a problem in the advancing knowledge of science does indeed file the gaps over time.

And this is one idea that creationists can never seem to understand. That an idea can be incomplete and yet still have evidence for it. That an idea can be incomplete, and yet still be the best explanation that exists by far.

And it gets them extremely angry that they do not have any scientific evidence for their beliefs when that is due to the actions of creation "scientists". There are real scientists, though they are almost always scientists that work in other fields, that understand the basics of science completely. They understand the concept of scientific evidence and how to make a proper hypothesis. Yet they can never force themselves to make a proper scientific hypothesis for their beliefs. I have bringing up Michael Behe lately. He did have a hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity. it was quickly refuted and he went the pseudoscience route in response. In the Dover trial he had to admit that by his definition of a theory that he had accept as a result that astrology (not astronomy, but the zodiac and all of that) would count as a scientific theory in his definition.

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

The criteria used by an advocate of Intelligent Design to justify claims that ID is science would also include astrology, a landmark US trial hears

www.newscientist.com

 

[F1fan]

And this is one idea that creationists can never seem to understand. That an idea can be incomplete and yet still have evidence for it. That an idea can be incomplete, and yet still be the best explanation that exists by far.

And the whole basis for the rejection of fact-based explanations is for a set of beliefs that not only DON'T have evidence, but are contrary to evidence. Creationists try to poke holes in science while completely unable to show that the magic and existence of their God is even plausible, let alone real and an alternative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How?
How did I do this? All I did, was ask you questions. Which I hoped would raise your through-provoking faculties.

Elsewhere, I asked questions about how claimants of demons and their actions are able to make the determinations they do. And asked in two different threads. It is not irrational to want answers and to evaluate answers provided. I got no answers to those questions. What I got was an obvious attempt to divert from those questions and allusion that my personal beliefs are wanting and false. What I believe regarding demons is irrelevant to your ability, or as it turns out, inability to answer those questions. Instead, you and other members of your faith group decided to question my faith that was not the topic of discussion or relevant to answering my questions. Funny how the evidence seems to support a view of off-topic that is merely a convenience to ignore or invoke depending on perceived utility.

I know what you claim about your faith. In my view that should include honest answers to questions asked even if that answer is "I don't know" or "I can't offer evidence to support my position". Is your view of the Bible merely another convenience to weaponize at need?

It wasn’t done to upset you. I’m sorry for that.

It was done to avoid answering my questions by all the evidence I saw. Further, the evidence strongly indicates it was a passive aggresive attempt to generate irrelevant off topic banter to neutralize a perceived threat and shut me up. If there was no ill intentions why has one of you been following me all over the forum posting response after response to anything I post? Is that badgering or some misguided, deviant form of witnessing that I'm unfamiliar with?

But it was a little frustrating: you know where I stand on God’s part of creation, but I don’t know yours.

I'm not here to alleviate your personal frustrations that are entirely your own and nothing to do with me. You are fully aware of what I believe or you should be by now. I find it difficult to accept that you don't know and can't think of any reason your not knowing would limit your ability to answer questions or support your claims.

Outside of attempting to use my beliefs against me, I don't really think you care what they are. I haven't seen any effort to learn from what I have posted.

And it is late… Goodnight, my cousin.

Ending with some overtly friendly closing doesn't eliminate any wrong you have done or make me feel all warm and fuzzy for someone that clearly considers my exercise of belief to be false.

Believe however you want to believe. That is the a right I recognize for all. But if you want to assert that your dogma is fact over the rational use of evidence to draw sound conclusions, then you need much, much more than what you have been doing.

I can't see how beating up on me supports your claims.