Origin of life

[Sapiens]

Utter nonsense, again. Abiogenesis is creating life from inorganic matter. Creating organic matter from inorganic matter is just a simple chemistry, that I am very well aware of. So, can we finally stop treating me like a five years old and start talking about abiogenesis?

If it is a too long distance for you guys, I will make it shorter, but not easier:
I am not challenging that life comes out from inorganic matter anymore.
I am challenging that life comes from organic matter.

I do not care at all about the "first step" because I never challenged that - why on Earth would anyone think that organic matter comes exclusively from a living system?

If a picture needs to be drawn: I am granting you a complete system of organic matter, organized in such a way that just a second ago it was containing life. But now, it is a corpse. Please provide anything, experiment or even a line of thought by which that corpse would be brought back to life. That is the Frankenstein syndrome in abiogenesis believers that I mentioned earlier. It would take creating a negative entropy, opposing all known laws of nature, to bring that corpse to life. So, I am not asking even for the experiment anymore. Just suggest any line of thought, any reasoning how to start life by a cold boot. And please no science fiction, no jokes, no Frankenstein.

You're a bit behind in your literature: A New Physics Theory of Life and Could thermodynamic fluctuations have led to the origins of life?

You do know that there are more than four elements now?

 

[shawn001]

Astronomers discover complex organic matter in the universe
Oct 26, 2011

"In today's issue of the journal Nature, astronomers report that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe."

Astronomers discover complex organic matter in the universe

 

[miodrag]

The Miller/Urey Experiment

Risking that I will be feeding a troll, since no person educated in Western civilization can be that ignorant, I will just quote a passage from the link above:

"Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun."

 

[miodrag]

You're a bit behind in your literature: A New Physics Theory of Life and Could thermodynamic fluctuations have led to the origins of life?

In fact, I posted the link to the first page you gave on March 6th on Facebook. So I was well aware of entropy challenge before posting here. There are many experiments and testings ahead, many problems to be solved, both physical as well as logical, like: if laws of thermodynamics favor life, then why is there death? Death should not be favored by the laws of nature, etc. Even if the theory would be proven, it would only establish a new feature that life and non-life share - self organization. Still far away from running around the fields.

Your second link says "The basic problem of abiogenesis is finding the first living entity that generated from non-living matter"
and
"...proposing that the answer may lie in thermodynamic fluctuations. "

So at least we moved one step towards sanity, it seems that you also recognize that abiogenesis is still not a fact but a theory desperately needing rationalization.

Common problem for both these theories is why this spontaneous and natural abiogenesis, dictated by the laws of thermodynamics, was never observed? It happened once, and never again...? Why do we have to painstakingly investigate, instead simply observing it happening every day?


Still, it is at least one Frankenstein theory that sounds much better than electricity-sparkled life, and will be exciting to see the outcome.

 

[Sapiens]

In fact, I posted the link to the first page you gave on March 6th on Facebook. So I was well aware of entropy challenge before posting here. There are many experiments and testings ahead, many problems to be solved, both physical as well as logical, like: if laws of thermodynamics favor life, then why is there death? Death should not be favored by the laws of nature, etc.

That's rather simple, natural selection "improves the breed." Without death there is no selection. The improved organism will usually outcompete the unimproved one and in time replace it. There are cases were plants are almost immortal, clonal organisms like the Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) that form the largest and heaviest organisms on the planet. From wiki: All of the aspens typically grow in large clonal colonies, derived from a single seedling, and spread by means of root suckers; new stems in the colony may appear at up to 30–40 m (98–131 ft) from the parent tree. Each individual tree can live for 40–150 years above ground, but the root system of the colony is long-lived. In some cases, this is for thousands of years, sending up new trunks as the older trunks die off above ground. For this reason, it is considered to be an indicator of ancient woodlands. One such colony in Utah, given the nickname of "Pando", is estimated to be 80,000 years old,[2] making it possibly the oldest living colony of aspens. Some aspen colonies become very large with time, spreading about 1 m (3.3 ft) per year, eventually covering many hectares. They are able to survive forest fires, because the roots are below the heat of the fire, with new sprouts growing after the fire burns out.

Even if the theory would be proven, it would only establish a new feature that life and non-life share - self organization. Still far away from running around the fields.

Once they "self-organize," running around the fields, flying through the air, swimming in the seas is all but inevitable, natural selection through the production of variation and winnowing of competition for access to the gene pool of succeeding generations makes it so.

Your second link says "The basic problem of abiogenesis is finding the first living entity that generated from non-living matter"
and
"...proposing that the answer may lie in thermodynamic fluctuations. "

You are quote mining. The entire paragraph reads, "The basic problem of abiogenesis is finding the first living entity that generated from non-living matter. ... But what is the definition of life: is it replication, or metabolism, or simply self-catalysis? I think that it is not simply a matter of definition: what is necessary is 'evolution,' even if the entity that undergoes (or performs) evolution is not a classical living entity. After evolution starts, it can reach whatever complex structures: from a cell, evolution creates trees, whales, birds, ants, and all the prodigious current living world."

Please note that the sentence you lifted is not as you present it, a statement of the problem, but rather a scene setter, leading to the rest of the paragraph that outlines the difficulty of even defining, "what is life" and the superiority of equating "evolution" with life, the suggestion that we are not looking for the "first life" per se, but rather the "first evolver."

So at least we moved one step towards sanity, it seems that you also recognize that abiogenesis is still not a fact but a theory desperately needing rationalization.

That "step towards sanity" requires that you first accept evolution, once you have done so, abiogensis having occurred is obvious because of the tautology that it is here. Granted that is a weak logical structure, but the only alternative is deus ex machina, and that is far weaker.

Common problem for both these theories is why this spontaneous and natural abiogenesis, dictated by the laws of thermodynamics, was never observed? It happened once, and never again...? Why do we have to painstakingly investigate, instead simply observing it happening every day?

That is also rather simple. Life drastically changed the environment in ways that permitted the evolution of more successful and robust forms that further changed the environment until one or more items required: the precursors, the materials needed, the substrate available, the conditions required, etc. for abiogensis to occur were unavailable. Trivial examples are the reduction of available carbon and the increase in atmospheric oxygen.

Still, it is at least one Frankenstein theory that sounds much better than electricity-sparkled life, and will be exciting to see the outcome.

I rather doubt that we will ever "see the outcome" in the sense of anything like even lay "proof." The best that may be hoped for are experiments that demonstrate the possibility.

 

[Shad]

Risking that I will be feeding a troll, since no person educated in Western civilization can be that ignorant, I will just quote a passage from the link above:

"Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun."

I never said it solved the problems of life. You claimed you were talking about abiogenesis and my citation was not about it. I provided a link proving otherwise. Nice try at a strawman in an attempt to cover up your error and change what I said in order to fit your flawed rebuttal.

Utter nonsense, again. Abiogenesis is creating life from inorganic matter. Creating organic matter from inorganic matter is just a simple chemistry, that I am very well aware of. So, can we finally stop treating me like a five years old and start talking about abiogenesis?

Maybe read the whole article since it is about abiogenesis rather than your goal post shifting idea of it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just because you can't [KNOW HOW LIFE ORIGINATED] doesn't mean that [IT DIDN'T ORIGINATE IN A WAY YOU ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT]

I admit I stole this - i.e. (Just because you can't [PROVE THERE IS A GOD] doesn't mean that [HE DOESN'T EXIST])

 

[McBell]

Just because you can't [KNOW HOW LIFE ORIGINATED] doesn't mean that [IT DIDN'T ORIGINATE IN A WAY YOU ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT]

I admit I stole this - i.e. (Just because you can't [PROVE THERE IS A GOD] doesn't mean that [HE DOESN'T EXIST])

Because theists cannot prove there is a god, there is no reason I have to believe in god.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because theists cannot prove there is a god, there is no reason I have to believe in god.

The evolutionists continue exposing their evil that they have no acceptance of subjectivity. And their knowledge about how things are chosen continues to be absent.

If evolution is true, then democracy is wrong. Then we are just kind of weird to focus on choosing as if it meant something in respect to the origins of anything. Then faith is wrong, emotions are wrong, God is wrong, the law is wrong, and any other concept which involves choosing is weird and wrong.

Or it is weird and wrong that evolutionists like Dennett consider free will to be a like the functioning of a thermostat turning off and on pending on settings and changes in room temperature. Or the nazi Konrad Lorenz with his ideas on aggression was weird and wrong. Or Darwin was weird and wrong by measuring emotions using facial expression. Or Heackel with chairing the competition on applying Darwinism to the state was weird and wrong in advocating eugenics and anti-semitism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow. What can one say after that?

 

[McBell]

Wow. What can one say after that?

Life is like a box of chocolates....

 

[McBell]

The evolutionists continue exposing their evil that they have no acceptance of subjectivity. And their knowledge about how things are chosen continues to be absent.

If evolution is true, then democracy is wrong. Then we are just kind of weird to focus on choosing as if it meant something in respect to the origins of anything. Then faith is wrong, emotions are wrong, God is wrong, the law is wrong, and any other concept which involves choosing is weird and wrong.

Or it is weird and wrong that evolutionists like Dennett consider free will to be a like the functioning of a thermostat turning off and on pending on settings and changes in room temperature. Or the nazi Konrad Lorenz with his ideas on aggression was weird and wrong. Or Darwin was weird and wrong by measuring emotions using facial expression. Or Heackel with chairing the competition on applying Darwinism to the state was weird and wrong in advocating eugenics and anti-semitism.

I understand you are on a broken record course of bull ****, but just so you know, I have put your broken record course of bull **** on ignore, because, well, to be perfectly honest, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have a nice day.

 

[Etritonakin]

The building blocks of physical life and its environment were produced by the "big bang" -and life is an arrangement of those materials.

How could we know exactly what God did at any specific point before or after the big bang?

I definitely believe what we are and see required an intelligence, but also acknowledge that the ways of an eternal being would take much longer than my lifetime to understand.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I understand you are on a broken record course of bull ****, but just so you know, I have put your broken record course of bull **** on ignore, because, well, to be perfectly honest, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have a nice day.

He is just like all the other evil evolutionists competing fact against opinion to the destruction of opinion. So as that beauty, love and God, either they must be measured as fact, or they are not real, opinion is not allowed. You can see this time and again, he is demanding that God must be measured, or else He does not exist.

Unfortunately this focus on facts only does not involve any fact about any decision made in the entire history of the universe and humanity. These facts are also excluded by the evil evolutionists, just like opinion is excluded.

And when you find somebody beautiful, then it may be you choose to throw your entire life upside down to spend it with this person. So to say the things we cannot measure, like the beauty, is what our lives are about, it is what makes things turn out the way they do, by choosing.

Yet the governments and science continues to spread the lie of evolution, denying freedom and subjectivity.

 

[McBell]

He is just like all the other evil evolutionists competing fact against opinion to the destruction of opinion. So as that beauty, love and God, either they must be measured as fact, or they are not real, opinion is not allowed. You can see this time and again, he is demanding that God must be measured, or else He does not exist.

Unfortunately this focus on facts only does not involve any fact about any decision made in the entire history of the universe and humanity. These facts are also excluded by the evil evolutionists, just like opinion is excluded.

And when you find somebody beautiful, then it may be you choose to throw your entire life upside down to spend it with this person. So to say the things we cannot measure, like the beauty, is what our lives are about, it is what makes things turn out the way they do, by choosing.

Yet the governments and science continues to spread the lie of evolution, denying freedom and subjectivity.

Still talking nonsense I see.

back in the abyss you go.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Still talking nonsense I see.

back in the abyss you go.

Mestimia is like his avatar, ridiculously evil, asking to measure God. And ridiculous evil, provides a potential for serious evil.

It is a simple issue, to be a good guy you have to acknowledge as fact that freedom is real, and have to accept subjectivity, accept the freedom of opinion and religion. Then you are on the side of democracy, peace, family, friendship, worship.

No way is it possible to be a good moral person by trying to replace acceptance of freedom and subjectivity with being clever or intellectual. This is a simple issue, by rejecting freedom and subjectivity, he is on the side of supression, dictatorship, exploitation and whatnot.

 

[McBell]

Mestimia is like his avatar, ridiculously evil, asking to measure God. And ridiculous evil, provides a potential for serious evil.

It is a simple issue, to be a good guy you have to acknowledge as fact that freedom is real, and have to accept subjectivity, accept the freedom of opinion and religion. Then you are on the side of democracy, peace, family, friendship, worship.

No way is it possible to be a good moral person by trying to replace acceptance of freedom and subjectivity with being clever or intellectual. This is a simple issue, by rejecting freedom and subjectivity, he is on the side of supression, dictatorship, exploitation and whatnot.

Sadly, you have done nothing but further prove my point with the above quoted blatant rule violation.

Perhaps one day you will learn that you cannot promote yourself by dissing others.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sadly, you have done nothing but further prove my point with the above quoted blatant rule violation.

Perhaps one day you will learn that you cannot promote yourself by dissing others.

The only thing holding evolution theory up is the political cleverness of it's proponents. It's got nothing to do with the facts, because anybody can see that the facts point toward freedom being real and relevant in the universe, that organisms are chosen as a whole.

 

[McBell]

The only thing holding evolution theory up is the political cleverness of it's proponents. It's got nothing to do with the facts, because anybody can see that the facts point toward freedom being real and relevant in the universe, that organisms are chosen as a whole.

Bold faced lies in a sad attempt at propping up your fantasy.

Sad really.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Bold faced lies in a sad attempt at propping up your fantasy.

Sad really.

Reasonably and honestly, we can see that science generally has a problem with acknowledging any freedom is real.

I follow the most advanced science on it, and I can say that the mathematics of how choosing works is not matured.

Reasonably and honestly, all people acknowledge freedom is real. Freedom is an unavoidable integral part of common discourse. And by their common understanding of freedom, all people see the design of organisms, that they are chosen a whole.

Then people come to science with their finding, and science says, well we have not worked out the mathematics of how to describe any choosing at all yet.

And then evolutionists come along and say we don't need to describe origins in terms of choosing.

And that proposition of evolutionits is illogical, and is only held up by political cleverness of the evolutionists.

There is no bold lies on my part at all.

One can see what a mess the wiki on free will is, substantiating that choosing cannot yet be described mathematically. And everybody knows that we all talk in terms of making choices on a practical basis in daily life, and that these choices are related to the origins of our actions. So evolutionists are cleverly exploiting the lack of a mathematical understanding in science of how choosing works.