Primordial Soup

[Subduction Zone]

based on DNA’s complexity

All you have are self contradicting arguments from ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah ahead of single celled organisms which was 4 billion yrs ago

There is much that we do not know, but those gaps of our ignorance do not free us from looking and learning. They also do not invite speculation or a person's favorite belief to be elevated to fact by default to fill those gaps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This question doesn’t relate to our conversation

Yes it does. It relates in your claim that complexity would lead us to conclude life didn't arise naturally. Since you offer no explanation, I can only conclude you have none to address those facts.

I would want to have the best information available to draw my conclusions. Certainly a better understanding of chemical complexity, spontaneous reactions, a more detailed timeline of events, and so forth. Don't you want that too?

 

[Jimmy]

Yes it does. It relates in your claim that complexity would lead us to conclude life didn't arise naturally. Since you offer no explanation, I can only conclude you have none to address those facts.

I would want to have the best information available to draw my conclusions. Certainly a better understanding of chemical complexity, spontaneous reactions, a more detailed timeline of events, and so forth. Don't you want that too?

I’ve been saying it arose naturally over a billion yrs. Still your question doesn’t relate to our conversation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All you have are self contradicting arguments from ignorance.

It seems to be yet another iteration of "gap theory". We don't have definitive answers, so therefore...

Sadly, none of it precludes or denies the existence of God. It is simply an objective reading of the evidence. The only evidence we have available.

It just doesn't fit literal interpretations of a book written in the context of a culture displaced by 1,000's of years of time. A culture we didn't live and may miss some of the meaning that was intended in the original works even if we study original language versions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve been saying it arose naturally over a billion yrs. Still your question doesn’t relate to our conversation

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

 

[Jimmy]

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

Dna forms spontaneously and quickly in a womb today too but I’m talking about the evolution of dna

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve been saying it arose naturally over a billion yrs. Still your question doesn’t relate to our conversation

You keep saying question, but it was a request for you to explain why complexity is a barrier and what evidence you are using. As well as how that information leads you to doubt abiogenesis. There are many gaps in what you are saying and I am asking for the information that fills those gaps. Logically, you must have it to draw the conclusion you have.

 

[We Never Know]

Did life spring forth from this soup? I'm having difficulty believing that.

Being "soup" as we know it contains things that "used" to be alive..... Is soup the right word to use?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dna forms spontaneously and quickly in a womb today too but I’m talking about the evolution of dna

It doesn't form spontaneously in living things. It forms through a biochemical pathway under the control of the very molecule being formed. It really is just copying itself in living things. It is the origin that is the question.

Forming spontaneously means it didn't exist and then, through some undiscovered process, it does exist outside of any system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dna forms spontaneously and quickly in a womb today too but I’m talking about the evolution of dna

DNA does not form spontaneously in the womb. The DNA comes from the parents. Do you even know what "spontaneously" means?

 

[Jimmy]

You keep saying question, but it was a request for you to explain why complexity is a barrier and what evidence you are using. As well as how that information leads you to doubt abiogenesis. There are many gaps in what you are saying and I am asking for the information that fills those gaps. Logically, you must have it to draw the conclusion you have.

The evolution of complex dna would suggest that it would take longer than a billion years as the evolution of single celled organisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion years. This is like the 5 th time I’ve said this. As far as evidence, well im just speculating like all the other scientists do regarding the early processes of the evolution of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evolution of complex dna would suggest that it would take longer than a billion years as the evolution of single celled organisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion years. This is like the 5 th time I’ve said this. As far as evidence, well im just speculating like all the other scientists do regarding the early processes of the evolution of life.

Another non sequitur. When you make such claim you need to provide evidence. To even have evidence you need a testable model first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evolution of complex dna would suggest that it would take longer than a billion years as the evolution of single celled organisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion years. This is like the 5 th time I’ve said this. As far as evidence, well im just speculating like all the other scientists do regarding the early processes of the evolution of life.

You make it sound as if the path from single-celled prokaryotes to multi-celled, eukaryotic terrestrial plants was some minor step that should have been achieved over night, but I see no reason to conclude that. You are not including important factors that may have governed that evolution. The existence of "terrestrial" would be one of those. These are not processes occurring in vacuums independently. There is the toxicology of the oceans, the atmosphere, the formation of land and soils, etc. Then too, the difference in complexity between Prokaryota and Eukaryota may have required overcoming significant barriers that required time and evolutionary breakthroughs.

The comparison between chemical evolution and the evolution of a specific group to draw a conclusion of doubt in abiogenesis isn't very sound. It isn't a good comparison.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evolution of complex dna would suggest that it would take longer than a billion years as the evolution of single celled organisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion years. This is like the 5 th time I’ve said this. As far as evidence, well im just speculating like all the other scientists do regarding the early processes of the evolution of life.

The wheel seems to have been invented 6,000 years ago, but we have only had modern, internal combustion cars for a little over 130 years. Much had to happen between the invention of the wheel and the Bugatti Chiron or a Koenigsegg. Engines would be one of those things. Roads another. There are probably factors I am ignorant of in this too. But my ignorance doesn't make me doubt the wheel was invented.

 

[Jimmy]

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

I agree. It’s all speculation.

 

[Jimmy]

It doesn't form spontaneously in living things. It forms through a biochemical pathway under the control of the very molecule being formed. It really is just copying itself in living things. It is the origin that is the question.

Forming spontaneously means it didn't exist and then, through some undiscovered process, it does exist outside of any system.

My bad then

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

I agree. It’s all speculation.

I haven't said it is speculation. All or some. I have said that we don't know some things, but we have evidence for many things that elevate it beyond speculation.

 

[Jimmy]

You make it sound as if the path from single-celled prokaryotes to multi-celled, eukaryotic terrestrial plants was some minor step that should have been achieved over night, but I see no reason to conclude that. You are not including important factors that may have governed that evolution. The existence of "terrestrial" would be one of those. These are not processes occurring in vacuums independently. There is the toxicology of the oceans, the atmosphere, the formation of land and soils, etc. Then too, the difference in complexity between Prokaryota and Eukaryota may have required overcoming significant barriers that required time and evolutionary breakthroughs.

The comparison between chemical evolution and the evolution of a specific group to draw a conclusion of doubt in abiogenesis isn't very sound. It isn't a good comparison.

It’s all complex

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have said this with the caveat that you have doubts and cite complexity as one factor leading to those doubts. That inorganic molecules and organic molecules of high complexity exist and that both organic and inorganic molecules are known to form spontaneously in some conditions, the subject is relevant and would lead to a reasonable conclusion that complexity isn't likely to be a barrier to these molecules forming. Since we have no basis to conclude they need to occur over some specific time, that further erodes the basal doubt.

I agree. It’s all speculation.

If you know something, I am interested in finding that out so that I can alter my conclusions appropriately. That is what one does to maintain the best explanations to use.

You claim doubts and over some evidence, but I want to know if there is more to it. Perhaps you know something that would lead me to join you in your conclusion. That is why I am asking questions. That I point out flaws that I notice doesn't mean I am dismissing you. Just trying to understand where you are coming from and whether the direction you are going is the best one.