Primordial Soup

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That is a good question. The claim implies a strong background knowledge, a review of the work and thorough analysis of the findings coexisting with what has already been addressed by the expressed admission of a limited knowledge of the subject.

I would be interested to see how that is reconciled.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

My bad

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Since you claim the four pieces of evidence you are using are pretty much all you have, how is it you feel able to draw this conclusion in light of what has been said regarding the difference in speculation compared to the existing hypotheses?

 

[Jimmy]

Dna came from outer space or developed quick on earth. Haha

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My bad

Not really. Discussion and debate are supposed to be educational in both directions. It isn't just a question of which one of us can come up with the most pithy or damning comeback.

For all I know, you may be tops in pithy, sarcastic one line zingers that would make me look foolish. But we wouldn't, either one of us, learn much about the subject or better come to good conclusions that way.

There is nothing bad about ignorance of something except it be used to punch through claims that have little chance for existence otherwise and done so willfully knowing better.

 

[Jimmy]

Since you claim the four pieces of evidence you are using are pretty much all you have, how is it you feel able to draw this conclusion in light of what has been said regarding the difference in speculation compared to the existing hypotheses?

I drew speculation not a conclusion

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dna came from outer space or developed quick on earth. Haha

Not necessarily fully formed molecules, but precursors that didn't form here potentially might have arrived that way. Though, I have my own doubts. There is evidence it is possible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I drew speculation not a conclusion

Strange. You seem eager to erode your own position. Or is it some means to take science down to a level of merely speculation so that it can be dismissed at leisure and without reason? I have to bring it up. I have seen attempts to that effect carried out before by others.

 

[Jimmy]

Not necessarily fully formed molecules, but precursors that didn't form here potentially might have arrived that way. Though, I have my own doubts. There is evidence it is possible.

Or that

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess I’m more of a simple man

Well, it has been nice chatting with you. Perhaps here or in another of these threads we can pick the conversation back up. I have to go to bed. Church in the morning and sleep before then.

 

[Jimmy]

Strange. You seem eager to erode your own position. Or is it some means to take science down to a level of merely speculation so that it can be dismissed at leisure and without reason? I have to bring it up. I have seen attempts to that effect carried out before by others.

Never eroded my position. Not takin science down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never eroded my position. Not takin science down.

Perhaps I am mistaken. I will accept what you say.

But it is still an issue worth mention considering how past performance has been carried out by a certain band of deniers and that many new to such debates do not seem to realize has reached the level of canard.

Good night.

 

[Heyo]

@Dan From Smithville, @Subduction Zone:

I am with @Moon on this specific question. It is strange that life formed basically as soon as it was possible. And then it took 3 billion years to get from single cells to complex life. We know how multicellularity evolved, we can induce it in the lab. Nature took 3 billion years for that step. Compared to that, formation of life seems much more complex, we don't know exactly how it happened but it did practically in an instant (on evolutionary timelines).

 

[Jimmy]

Perhaps I am mistaken. I will accept what you say.

But it is still an issue worth mention considering how past performance has been carried out by a certain band of deniers and that many new to such debates do not seem to realize has reached the level of canard.

Good night.

I’m in no band haha

 

[vulcanlogician]

I am with @Moon on this specific question. It is strange that life formed basically as soon as it was possible. And then it took 3 billion years to get from single cells to complex life. We know how multicellularity evolved, we can induce it in the lab. Nature took 3 billion years for that step. Compared to that, formation of life seems much more complex, we don't know exactly how it happened but it did practically in an instant (on evolutionary timelines).

I wasn't aware that single cell to multi-cell life was achieved under laboratory conditions. That's super interesting. I'll have to look that up.

As for all other (complex) evolution happening beyond that in a (mere) 600 million years... I think the theory is that the more complex an organism is, the more prone to evolution it is. Things like sexual reproduction really accelerate the process of evolution because it increases the number of factors that affect genealogies.

Hopefully, someone more adept at biology can explain it better than I have here. But the nutshell answer I heard years ago was that complexity and diversity leads to even more complexity and diversity. The inverse of that suggests that simple life forms are less apt to evolve than complex ones.

 

[ChristineM]

And yet it took 4 billion years of evolution to go from single celled organisms to terrestrial plants. This is more complex than the evolution of DNA?

You have not been reading the answers in your own thread have you (or perhaps deliberately ignoring them). First life had to oxygenate the atmosphere before any complex life could develop. Imagine the time required for microscopic organisms to drive oxygen levels up enough through the whole world.

Once the hard part flooding s done the rest can follow easily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok

Seriously, if one professional made such a claim about another and could not prove it he would be forced to apologize. That is a rather serious charge. The only people that tend to make such charges are those that have no clue.

You cannot accuse others of being a murderer without evidence. You cannot accuse others of being thieves without evidence. And you cannot accuse professionals of speculation without evidence. Professionally baseless speculation falls in between the two.

 

[ChristineM]

Seems like a tough question for some to answer.

I don't know if you are aware but 93% of the world population is not subject to the same timezones as the 7% of the world population living in the Americas.

I was dozing off for my beauty sleep when @Moon posted. And guess what. I also have a life outside RF so this morning i have fed breakfast to 5 cats and family, been to 2 Sunday markets and done a little housework before opening RF.

FYI... Moons deliberately ignorant post was the second post i answered on opening RF.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know if you are aware but 93% of the world population is not subject to the same timezones as the 7% of the world population living in the Americas.

I was dozing off for my beauty sleep when @Moon posted. And guess what. I also have a life outside RF so this morning i have fed breakfast tooh 5 cats and family, been to 2 Sunday markets and done a little housework before opening RF.

FYI... Moons deliberately ignorant post was the second post i answered on opening RF.

Oh well, you have energy. I wasn't referring to you in particular though. Like the universe expanding, the goalposts keep changing. Take care.

 

[Jimmy]

You have not been reading the answers in your own thread have you (or perhaps deliberately ignoring them). First life had to oxygenate the atmosphere before any complex life could develop. Imagine the time required for microscopic organisms to drive oxygen levels up enough through the whole world.

Once the hard part flooding s done the rest can follow easily.

Terrestrial plants don’t need oxygen