The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: rnaa
I mostly agree. I'm wondering why we should declare that pre-biotic evolution has nothing to do with biotic when we're not clear on what the pre-biotic conditions were. Nor where the line of demarcation lies between non-life and life.

a reply to: rnaa

What mechanism, other than a mutation, can cause a genetic change? What process, other than natural selection, can act to filter those genetic changes?

Let's be clear on what we're talking about here: sources of genetic variation. Without variation, it is said, evolution can not happen.

New variation can be introduced in a number of ways, such as:
-mutation
-gene flow
-genetic shuffling/recombination from mating
-epigenetic factors
-HGT in prokaryotes

To name a few.

a reply to: rnaa

Viruses are way, way more complicated than the 'first' life.

Sure. I mention them here because they are agents that contain genetic material and can hijack cellular machinery to replicate itself. Yet they are not considered to be alive. They lie somewhere between non-life and life. When did they arise in relation to living matter? It's not clear. Could giant viruses be the origin of life on earth?

Remember: Szostak's work is JUST ONE HYPOTHESIS - but it is an extremely promising one, and goes a long way to answering your questions.

I'll check out Dr. Szostak's link, but honestly I'm not sure I have the patience to sit thru a 90m min video.
Thanks for your commentary about it none the less.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

What your problem is neighbor is that you insist, that to understand evolution one needs to understand abiogenesis/proteogenesis. Which has repeatedly been shown to be a flawed premise. You cite a single paragraph from a single page (non peer reviewed) of essentially an "evolution for dummies" FAQ, making a statement which is at odds with the rest of the scientific on the subject. Its a statement with no supporting citations. Thus it is worthless. Show the supporting evidence thanks

You admit to not being an expert in this, yet insist on acting as one.

I am very sorry but you are wrong. The premise of this thread is wrong. The OP and other supporters default to "science relies on faith", and you try these hackneyed gambits of single outlier statements by a department. It also uses the terms micro and macro evolution.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It must suck to feel insignificant. Atheists are even fewer, only 2.01%.

It must also suck when the only thing you can do to try to support your silly beliefs is throw out meaningless, out-of-context statistics that you think are somehow going to shame others for being logical....

Oh the "logical" people.
Logic tells man to look at this chart,



And come to the logical conclusion that 6.5 billion people deserve to die at this very moment.

Pure logic is absent of morals and compassion. How is that for shaming your logic? It is a good thing your logical view of humanity is a 2.01% super minority, or the survivors would be left worshipping at the Georgia guidestones.

Hitler had a fascination with a so called super race, his type of society would have embraced your godless world.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh look another logical fallacy used to distract from the topic, one which you are struggling with.

A couple of things:

(A) A Hitler was a Christian.
(B) You assume athiests are amoral, that all non atheists are moral ,and share the same morals.
(C) ALL of that post was off topic.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh look another logical fallacy used to distract from the topic, one which you are struggling with.

A couple of things:

(A) A Hitler was a Christian.
(B) You assume athiests are amoral, that all non atheists are moral ,and share the same morals.
(C) ALL of that post was off topic.

They introduced logic in the absence of a creator, carry it to the final conclusion.
Only the ones who are tall enough, smart enough, strong enough get to stay in the gene pool, the rest get carted off to the protein reprocessing plants.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Neighbor that is again specious reasoning. You have in no way shape or form shown that atheists are amoral. Similarly my own spirituality, will have a different set of morality to yours.

So again prove your statement or recant.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I'll check out Dr. Szostak's link, but honestly I'm not sure I have the patience to sit thru a 90m min video. Thanks for your commentary about it none the less.

The video is only 10 minutes long.

a reply to: Noinden

You cite a single paragraph from a single page (non peer reviewed) of essentially an "evolution for dummies" FAQ, making a statement which is at odds with the rest of the scientific on the subject.

This coming from someone who uses rationalwiki as a credible and unbiased source.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I had to aim at your capabilities neighbor, as you clearly can not fathom actual scientific discourse ....

a reply to: rnaa

Sorry, the first couple of minutes were about religious ideas so I turned it off. The other one was 90min long...

I went back and watched and he seems to be showing (from 7min in) that even early polymers evolved into very basic genomes through competition, replication, mutation, and inheritance. Aren't these the same mechanisms?

a reply to: Noinden

Cool. Thanks.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You started with this attitude neighbor. But here, since I may be wrong.

Link

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I had a feeling this was familiar

Old ATS post by OP

You need a new topic to pursue.

It's interesting even those who believe in evolution like "PhotonEffect" are attacked relentlessly for having just a slightly different opinion on Abiogenesis. It's sad if you take one misstep from the great and mighty intellectuals posting here, you get attacked.

These posters have illustrated rather well that you can't deviate one iota from their precious opinion.

Pure arrogance, at least everybody that is reading this thread can see it.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Another attempt to derail the discussion. Logically facetious Photoneffect seems robust enough to hand out the insults, thus can take them

Now please return to the topic. Show how one must understand abiogenesis to understand evolution.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Its an issue of putting the cart before the horse friend...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I had a feeling this was familiar

Old ATS post by OP

You need a new topic to pursue.

Off topic but very enlightening.
You are going to stamp this out? How dare someone post twice to the forum you visit!

a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about some fresh ideas neighbor. Or a change of tactics, you know less logical fallacy and more substance. You know deny ignorance etc etc

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And yet its not. In this case it involves assembling the cart, and breeding the horse. Independent activities, vastly different, requiring different considerations.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about some fresh ideas neighbor. Or a change of tactics, you know less logical fallacy and more substance. You know deny ignorance etc etc

This topic highlights the atheist's undeniable faith.

Welcome to the religious world. Abiogenesis was your downfall, the free ride is over, you are just as religious as the next guy. It doesn't matter if you never admit to a creator, your belief system is relying on faith that the start of life shall be found and someday demonstrated. You laugh at a guy in the sky they laugh at your muck in the pond, no difference.