An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

a reply to: chr0naut

Ahh you've read all of those papers have you? You can then break down, in your own words how they support your idea that biogenesis was a common phenomenon?

a reply to: peter vlar

Cheers for the clarification goodman peter vlar.

Out of quoriosity do you believe that abiogenesis is the most plausible conclusion?

Bearing in mind the these two statement being completely different:

1: i believe abiogenesis to be a fact;
2: i believe abiogenesis to be the most plausible answer with the knowledge we have today and is subject to change.

Coomba98

a reply to: TzarChasm

if it can happen once, it can happen several times. that is the nature of possibility. we know something happened to generate life at a fundamental level, which says that something could occur more than once. delving further relies heavily on speculation, as you said. abiogenesis is a hypothesis at the moment, and still being explored rigorously by our most qualified researchers and their cutting edge tools and techniques. we will have to be satisfied with that for now. there is nothing conclusive except that life happened, evolution proceeded, and we are the result.

Isn't that exactly what I said? I said that we know it happened once. We have zero information about it happening more than once. Can it happen? Sure. But it's pure speculation. The probability distribution is so low as to be zero - although we acknowledge that at some point it may be a non-zero number with more information.

A group at Harvard-Smithsonian came up with a calculation for multiple life-originating events. It's a take-off on the Drake equation but goes into more detail:

The creators of the equation hope it can connect diverse areas of research that aim to answer long-standing questions about the origins of life, much like how the famous Drake equation pulled together research concerning communications from intelligent life. "The idea of the equation, at some level, is to try to connect the unknown, presumably microscopic events that … give rise to the first thing that we would call a living system — to connect those microscopic components to the macroscopic fact of whether a planet has life starting on it," Caleb Scharf, an astrophysicist at Columbia University and lead author of the new work, told Space.com.

www.space.com...

In the article below, someone calculated the odds of an individual existing at all as they currently are:



visual.ly...

I don't want to belabor the issue, but it seems somewhat irrelevant to be concerned about multiple life-originating events when we can't discern the complete dynamics of a single event.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

If you cant prove abiogenesis as a fact, then thats an ignorance fallacy digger.

And you dont understand science!

What qualifications do you have in science?

Coomba98

Still wondering about your credientials Mr. Coomba - got any??

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

None in this area, not that it matters when you can read the opinions of experts.

All im saying is its not a fact, yet.

Do you agree its not a fact?

If you do where is the evidence? Saying were here now so its a fact is an ignorance fallacy.

How do you know aliens from another universe didnt come here and brought life? Or its all a hologram or computer simulation?

Or the hugely unfounded theory that god or gods didnt create lifeforms?

There are many hypothesis on how life appeared in this universe.

Saying i dont know is the most intellectually honest answer.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

None in this area, not that it matters when you can read the opinions of experts.

All im saying is its not a fact, yet.

Do you agree its not a fact?

If you do where is the evidence? Saying were here now so its a fact is an ignorance fallacy.

How do you know aliens from another universe didnt come here and brought life? Or its all a hologram or scomputer simulation?

Or the hugely unfounded theory that god or gods didnt create lifeforms?

There are many hypothesis on how life appeared in this universe.

Coomba98

You didn't read my posts. I specifically said that we don't know whether life originated on Earth or came from somewhere else. We don't know the who, what, where and why of life. The evidence, however, is clear and irrefutable that life happened at least once. Life exists on this planet. So yes, abiogenesis is a fact - at least once anyway.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

So, the issue is that I am arguing for multiple abiogenetic events. You are arguing for a single one. Neither of us are arguing against abiogenesis.

That statement demonstrates that you don't know how science works. I have not advocated for a single event. If you read what I wrote on multiple occasions you would understand that we do not know and may never know if there were one or more life-forming events. There is no reproducible evidence that supports one scenario over the other. That said - and which I have also said multiple times - we go with what we have. We know that it happened at least once so we work from that premise until we elucidate more information.

You're advocating for multiple events. But you have not given a single iota of evidence to support that position. The papers you posted may make reference to abiogenesis and speculate on multiple events, but that's it - it's still speculation.

As I said, we know that it happened once. How, when, where and why remains an open question. It makes no sense to even dwell on multiple events when we can't prove the complete dynamics of a single event!

You work with what you've got. You design experiments around data that you can accumulate and analyze. Conclusions are drawn from experimental data, not speculation. The discussion portion of research papers deals with speculation if the scientist chooses to do so. But it doesn't qualify as experimental data. It remains speculation.

A technician goes with what they know. A scientist seeks to gain knowledge. Please review the scientific method and you will see that the theoretical and hypothetical play parts in the process.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you a scientist? Because Phamtom423 and myself are, did you not read the following post?
I have enough paper on the wall, letters after my name and publications that at the very least I can say that I understand the process. How about you?

That goes for me as well. I've BSc(Hons), PhD, DipGrad, PgDip, and a masters (business), papers, patents, and a paycheck which is tied to my science.

What are your contributions again?

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Abiogenesis on earth or elsewhere is still abiogenesis.

Its not a fact. If it is show me the evidence.

Its ok to say i dont know, but it appears abiogenesis is the most likely hypothesis.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Look in the mirror.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

So, the issue is that I am arguing for multiple abiogenetic events. You are arguing for a single one. Neither of us are arguing against abiogenesis.

That statement demonstrates that you don't know how science works. I have not advocated for a single event. If you read what I wrote on multiple occasions you would understand that we do not know and may never know if there were one or more life-forming events. There is no reproducible evidence that supports one scenario over the other. That said - and which I have also said multiple times - we go with what we have. We know that it happened at least once so we work from that premise until we elucidate more information.

You're advocating for multiple events. But you have not given a single iota of evidence to support that position. The papers you posted may make reference to abiogenesis and speculate on multiple events, but that's it - it's still speculation.

As I said, we know that it happened once. How, when, where and why remains an open question. It makes no sense to even dwell on multiple events when we can't prove the complete dynamics of a single event!

You work with what you've got. You design experiments around data that you can accumulate and analyze. Conclusions are drawn from experimental data, not speculation. The discussion portion of research papers deals with speculation if the scientist chooses to do so. But it doesn't qualify as experimental data. It remains speculation.

A technician goes with what they know. A scientist seeks to gain knowledge. Please review the scientific method and you will see that the theoretical and hypothetical play parts in the process.

Here is the scientific method as a flow chart. What don't you understand? You stop dead at data collection - you have none. Incomplete flow chart.

a reply to: Phantom423

I also want to know where he gets the definition of a technician. Many technicians are also scientists Its like he thinks there is a class within the profession

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Abiogenesis on earth or elsewhere is still abiogenesis.

Its not a fact. If it is show me the evidence.

Its ok to say i dont know, but it appears abiogenesis is the most likely hypothesis.

Coomba98

The study of abiogenesis involves geophysical, chemical, and biological considerations,[13] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three.[14] Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[15] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[16][17] The classic Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the basic chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions have been proposed, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[18] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[19][20][21][22]

Nothing is "fact" until it can be reproduced in the lab. And the door is never closed to new discovery.

Abiogenesis cannot be reproduced in the lab. However, there is enough research data to suggest a reasonable scenario as to how it may have happened.

I have previously posted numerous articles about self assembly to include research into the chemical reactions which can be reproduced in the lab. This goes to PROCESS - i.e. data collection, analysis and new discovery. You seem to forget that scientists get up every morning and actually go into the lab to work. There are literally hundreds of articles which demonstrate how the self assembly process works and it's probable role in abiogenesis.

You don't seem to understand that all the research is connected to the discovery process. It's an ongoing effort. We may never know exactly what events caused life to emerge. But as I mentioned in another post, we can accumulate data for analysis and follow the scientific method to draw some conclusions.

a reply to: coomba98

Where do you and your ilk get your ideas about science? Because none of you seem to know how science is actually performed.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I also want to know where he gets the definition of a technician. Many technicians are also scientists Its like he thinks there is a class within the profession

Absolutely they are. Actually today we're very dependent on sophisticated instrumentation so we all have to be technicians in one way or another. How many times have you kicked a gas chromatograph or a UV/IR spectrophotometer that spit our something like this - (this is not actually a spectra in nanometers - but you get the idea)



And then went home looking like this:



And let's hope you know NOT to have change in your pocket when you enter the lab where the 600 MHz NMR is housed.

a reply to: Phantom423

To be fair a properly shielded modern NMR will not affect your change A mechanical mechanism in an analogue watch if you get too close sure, large lumps of metal, not needed for precision, not so much. My Uncle (holder of a PhD) was an NMR technician at my University, I had the care and maintenance of one as part of my additional duties as a PD chemist in my first job (small companies make you do silly things ). One of my unofficial duties as a Senior PD scientist is to keep the espresso machine working, because I'm the only one who knows how, does that make me less of a scientist I wonder?

These people don't get that "technician" is a job title, Scientist includes that in its overall umbrella of people who might be called one

a reply to: Noinden

You're correct - however it did happen at Cal Tech and someone got killed - not sure it was change in the pocket but something similar happened.

Some days the only thing that works is this:

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Like goodman peter vlar said on the previous page.

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

Are you saying peters not qualified and doesnt know the scientific method?

As he is a scientist.

Also to confirm we dont know the origins of life then to jump to the conclusion of abiogenesis is an ignorance fallacy.

Coomba98

a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I know it happened, more dangerous would be a violent quench of the dewar, thats has a lot enegry contained in it with the pressurized liquid Nitrogen and liquid helium. The Russians took the side from a lab in the 1980s. I've been beside a minor violent quench, "all" it did was fill the room with well non breathable gasses.

Science is not easy, I work post Kilo scale chemistry. So I'm dealing with large quantities of reactive chemicals. Worst reaction was either 150 mols of HCN being generated (in a hydrogenator), 200 plus L of HF, or making an azide, and concentrating it on the Buchi. I also saw a lab leveled by a 50L reflux of an ether, that formed a peroxide.... thankfully no one was in it. But it made 7/7 look mild.

My bioinformatics however was pretty non eventful, computers just decide to loose a few days number crunching. That still "hurts' buts not likely to take your lab out

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Like goodman peter vlar said on the previous page.

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

Are you saying peters not qualified and doesnt know the scientific method?

As he is a scientist.

Also to confirm we dont know the origins of life then to jump to the conclusion of abiogenesis is an ignorance fallacy.

Coomba98

The appearance of life is a fact. Whether it arose from organic or inorganic material, was dropped by an asteroid, delivered by an alien race - we do not know.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/ noun the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago" historical another term for spontaneous generation.

You're creating an argument where there is none.