Primordial Soup

[Jimmy]

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.

Well it sounds like your pretty much set in your ideas. I’ve shared all my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s all complex

I agree with that. And the complexity varies. Some complex things happen more easily due to the emergence of previously complex things. A certain level of complexity seems to need to be reached for them to occur. Some things also simplify depending on the conditions and the selection or withdrawal of selection they experience.

But citing complexity as some sort of barrier to a natural process is too general a complaint without benefit of explanation and doesn't have the backing of the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No. It would be speculation for you since you have demonstrated to not understand this topic at all. It does not appear to be speculation for others. If you are curious you should be trying to learn how other people know what they know. Assuming it is speculation just because you do not understand something is a terrible error.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it sounds like your pretty much set in your ideas. I’ve shared all my thoughts on the matter.

If you think that, then you are not doing me any justice. All I have related are questions, evidence and reasoning. I have done you justice, I see no reason not to return the courtesy.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

Oh I don’t doubt it that’s why I suggested seeding from outer space

 

[Jimmy]

I agree with that. And the complexity varies. Some complex things happen more easily due to the emergence of previously complex things. A certain level of complexity seems to need to be reached for them to occur. Some things also simplify depending on the conditions and the selection or withdrawal of selection they experience.

But citing complexity as some sort of barrier to a natural process is too general a complaint without benefit of explanation and doesn't have the backing of the evidence.

That’s why it’s speculation

 

[Jimmy]

No. It would be speculation for you since you have demonstrated to not understand this topic at all. It does not appear to be speculation for others. If you are curious you should be trying to learn how other people know what they know. Assuming it is speculation just because you do not understand something is a terrible error.

Top scientists in the field only have speculation on the matter so…

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it sounds like your pretty much set in your ideas. I’ve shared all my thoughts on the matter.

Since you have created so many threads on the same subject, I must conclude you have some interest in it. Since you have made claims on that interest, I am only expressing my own interest in understanding those claims. Doing so is an expression of an open mind and not a closed one.

I disagree, since you have not answered most of my questions, you have not fully shared your thoughts on the matter.

The questions are not there to trip you up, but to lead to my understanding.

 

[Jimmy]

If you think that, then you are not doing me any justice. All I have related are questions, evidence and reasoning. I have done you justice, I see no reason not to return the courtesy.

I have shared to the best of my ability my book smarts.

 

[Jimmy]

Since you have created so many threads on the same subject, I must conclude you have some interest in it. Since you have made claims on that interest, I am only expressing my own interest in understanding those claims. Doing so is an expression of an open mind and not a closed one.

I disagree, since you have not answered most of my questions, you have not fully shared your thoughts on the matter.

The questions are not there to trip you up, but to lead to my understanding.

I’ve answered your questions and have informed you of my speculation . I don’t know what you are getting at.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s why it’s speculation

Why is it speculation to consider natural processes based on known information? Hypotheses are not speculation. Admittedly, we do not have a full body of evidence to properly test them. But that body of knowledge is growing and keeps leading us to those hypotheses.

Speculation seems to be more in doubting based on a lack of knowledge and evidence and an interest in a particular conclusion and not on anything that is currently available in the literature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have shared to the best of my ability my book smarts.

Thank you. If that is the best, then it is what I will use to draw my own conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ve answered your questions and have informed you of my speculation . I don’t know what you are getting at.

I was just trying to find out if there was a greater complexity to your position that you hadn't yet communicated. I have no knowledge of your skill levels, education, training, etc. I wouldn't be just to simply dismiss you with a wave of the hand out of my own bias without at least trying to learn your position, the evidence you are using and the thinking behind it. That happens to me and others on here regarding our knowledge of the science so often that it is becoming something I am working to avoid doing to others.

I have, I think, developed a fairly sound recognition of the source of that dismissal, but I don't automatically apply it as if it is some one-size-fits-all response without first reviewing another's position.

 

[Jimmy]

Why is it speculation to consider natural processes based on known information? Hypotheses are not speculation. Admittedly, we do not have a full body of evidence to properly test them. But that body of knowledge is growing and keeps leading us to those hypotheses.

Speculation seems to be more in doubting based on a lack of knowledge and evidence and an interest in a particular conclusion and not on anything that is currently available in the literature.

Yeah the few hypothesis about the origins of life add up to speculation as of now

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah the few hypothesis about the origins of life add up to speculation as of now

That isn't a valid comparison. Speculation is based on far less evidence and at least as little understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah the few hypothesis about the origins of life add up to speculation as of now

Out of curiosity, why so many different threads on the same subject? What is it you are hoping to achieve through the redundantcy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Top scientists in the field only have speculation on the matter so…

How would you prove that?


Here is the problem when you make such accusations. You put the burden of proof upon you. You now need to prove that it is speculation. When you cannot fully explain why it is speculation you make it look as if you lied.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speculation is without firm evidence

The evidence that exists for the current hypotheses is firm. Complex biomolecules have been found in extra-terrestrial objects. Lipid bilayers are seen to form spontaneously. The work in artificial life has achieved firm if admittedly limited results. Our knowledge of chemistry is firm. All this and more surpasses the standard of evidence of speculation.

 

[Jimmy]

That isn't a valid comparison. Speculation is based on far less evidence and at least as little understanding.

We got some good evidence for the origins of life up to 3.5 billion yrs ago, before that? Well it’s speculation

 

[Jimmy]

How would you prove that?


Here is the problem when you make such accusations. You put the burden of proof upon you. You now need to prove that it is speculation. When you cannot fully explain why it is speculation you make it look as if you lied.

Ok