Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

What would lead you to that conclusion? Are you suggesting that pre-biotic earth was a peanut butter jar?

I'm not suggesting it was like a peanut butter jar at all, I am suggesting that the proposed mechanisms of chemical abiogenesis are more likely to occur in a peanut butter jar.

There is a high possibility that nucleic acids could self-assemble as is referenced in this link: Self-Assembling Molecules Offer New Clues on Life's Possible Origin but again, the disproof is perhaps that we don't see it happening all the time.

Yes. They go to great lengths to ensure that the environment does not permit 'EXISTING LIFE FORMS' to use that very excellent growing medium to take over and spoil the product. And yet SOMETIMES it doesn't work as perfectly as they hope. Either they don't sanitize as well as they thought or a mutated life form is resistant to their hygenic efforts and 'does an end run'.

None of that says anything about whether a completely new life form has 'popped' into existence. The manufacturer does not look for completely new life forms. You don't look for completely new life forms when you spread it on your bread and put it into your mouth. Health inspectors don't look for completely new life forms when they do their inspections. Scientists are not breathlessly watching peanut butter jars looking for completely new life forms to show up.

NOBODY IS LOOKING. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it means that nobody is looking.

Food technologsts do statistical sampling of cultures taken from food products, all the time. They are on constant lookout for any life form, of any type.

There is also considerable ongoing experimental and theoretical exploration of chemical abiogenesis.

I do not believe that "nobody is looking".

AND the first life forms did not appear in a peanut butter jar. If a completely new life form actually used modern amino acids how would we even know that it was a completely new life form and not just a new species that we had not noticed before. All modern living organisms use a subset of 20 or so amino acids. That doesn't mean that was always the case for every organism from the first life.

There are many who suggest that we don't actually know what form such proto nucleic acids may have been, and that is technically correct.

But part of our assumptions are that these proto orgqanizations led to life as we know it now. It makes no sense for someone to suggest that there was some initial entirely alien organization of chemistry, that wasn't like we see now.

It actually was most probably like we see now. It was the precursor. It makes no sense to assume something began to organize in an alien manner and then, *"magic"*, it suddenly changed entirely and became what we see now.

It has nothing to do with 'better likelihood'. It has to do with 'what were the conditions like' and how could that work?

Surely there are theories which are improbable, as there are those that are of higher probability. Probability is a measure of likelihood and is valid when we are discussing the theoretical.

Peanut butter is a better medium for MODERN ORGANISMS. Organism that exist today and like to 'eat' the raw materials that peanut butter offers them. That has nothing to do with the conditions that led to first life.

You just don't get it that first life on earth was NOTHING at all like modern life, do you? Everything about the Earths chemical environment was different. More hydrogen, more methane, more sulphur, less oxygen. On and On. It was different. The atmosphere was different. The oceans were different. The temperature was different. The tides were different. The volcanic activity was different. EVERYTHING was different. And no peanut butter jar anywhere.

The physics that underlies the chemistry was the same and the currently evidened organization must have came from those precursors. An unbroken sequence of causes and effects would be the most reasonable proposition.

Thinking that peanut butter is a better candidate medium for fist life to appear is what is magical thinking.

Why would you assume that the results were different back then from what we get now when we replicate those ancient conditions?

a reply to: chr0naut

Surely there are theories which are improbable, as there are those that are of higher probability. Probability is a measure of likelihood and is valid when we are discussing the theoretical.

Surely not.

First, as you know, there is no theory of abiogenesis. Period. There are not some with 'higher probability', there are zero theories period.

Second, scientists don't bother to examine ideas that don't make sense. They COULD, for example, examine the chemistry and environment that would have led to silicon based life (which is, in theory, possible). But life on earth is not silicon based, so that would simply not be worth the effort.

Finally, it may well be that science identifies several different pathways that life on Earth may have emerged, and all those paths seem to work with no outlandish problems. We will never know that which of those paths is actually the path that was taken, or if another, unthought of path is the one. I suspect that scientists will then debate probabilities, sure. But at this time, that isn't the idea that is being chased. They are just trying to verify that it COULD be done. After that, there are more questions to be answered, but finding (at least) one path is the big question for today.

a reply to: chr0naut

Food technologsts do statistical sampling of cultures taken from food products, all the time. They are on constant lookout for any life form, of any type.

No. they are only looking for life forms that they expect to see there. They have no way of identifying a new, completely novel life form.

There is also considerable ongoing experimental and theoretical exploration of chemical abiogenesis.

Sure, but not looking in peanut jars.

I do not believe that "nobody is looking".

Please identify one researcher that is looking for new life form ON EARTH, in peanut jars or deep sea vents or anywhere.

Certainly people are looking for life outside of Earth. It is many many many orders of magnitude easier to identify a new life form on Mars, say, than on Earth (assuming it exists of course).

a reply to: chr0naut

Why would you assume that the results were different back then from what we get now when we replicate those ancient conditions?

I don't assume that the results are different. I don't assume we have necessarily identified what conditions to replicate either. But why do you dispute the significance of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Looking in a peanut jar is NOT replicating those ancient conditions. You are complaining that we don't see spontaneous generation in a peanut jar, and siting it as evidence that it never happened no matter what the environmental conditions were. But you don't know that it is not happening, you just make an unsupportable assertion that it doesn't happen, because you haven't seen it or heard of it.

The very existence of life changed the environment on Earth. Life put methane into the atmosphere, which allowed hydrogen to escape into space, which allowed oxygen to build in the atmosphere. As the Earth changed, so too did life, adapting to the changed conditions and pulling the methane back out of the atmosphere and injecting its carbon into plant tissue and eventually coal and petroleum.

This is an interesting Take from 2015 if you can last at over an hour also the sound is to low so headphones, Bluetooth or external speakers recommended.

Published on Mar 12, 2015 Brian J. Enquist, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Life on Earth is amazing and multifaceted. Ultimately all of life has descended from one common ancestor and has been guided by evolution by natural selection. On the one hand, the evolution of modern-day diversity and ecosystems may have been contingent on the initial chemical building blocks of life and the historical events that have characterized our planet over geologic time. On the other hand, there are numerous aspects of life pointing to regular and deterministic processes that shape the complexity and diversity of life. This talk will touch on those examples where the laws of chemistry and physics, in addition to evolutionary rules, have resulted in general properties of life. These properties ultimately determine how long we live, the diversity of life, the function and regulation of ecosystems and the biosphere, and how life will respond to climate change.

Excellent input and discussion above from all participants thanks indeed.
Peace..

a reply to: rnaa

Please identify one researcher that is looking for new life form ON EARTH, in peanut jars or deep sea vents or anywhere. Certainly people are looking for life outside of Earth. It is many many many orders of magnitude easier to identify a new life form on Mars, say, than on Earth (assuming it exists of course).

I don't understand your thinking. Why wouldn't scientists be looking for new forms of life on Earth? Why isn't it possible that life forms come and go all the time? Of course, capturing one in the process of development may be a rare event. But I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

NASA Finds New Life (Updated)

NASA is saying that this is "life as we do not know it". The reason is that all life on Earth is made of six components: Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same. That was true until today. In a surprising revelation, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet. Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism—called GFAJ-1 and found in Mono Lake, California—uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks. Arsenic is an element poisonous to every other living creature in the planet except for a few specialized microscopic creatures.

gizmodo.com...

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Surely not.

First, as you know, there is no theory of abiogenesis. Period. There are not some with 'higher probability', there are zero theories period.

Well, yes, chemical abiogenesis, as a whole, is 'hypothetical', but chemical abiogenesis incorporates a number of theories and hypotheses, the predominant one being the Oparin-Haldane Theory (the clue is in the name). Most of it's sub-processes have been observed experimentally, so they aren't hypothetical, but theoretical.

I was using the more publicly understood (and more accurate) definition of 'theory' rather than the 'scientific' definition (the distinction is still quite opinion based and, as a point of argument, is usually irrelevant to that argument, as in this thread).

If we are going to get picky about nomenclature, remember that you 'called me out' over describing the Miller-Urey experiment, as "creating organic matter from inorganic". You citied the fact that organic chemicals are carbon bonded, the inference being that if it has carbon atoms in it, it must be organic.

Is diamond organic? Is soot organic? Are the Fullerenes organic? No, Carbon, on its own, regardless of allotroph, is inorganic.

So the Miller-Urey experiment did produce organic amino acids from inorganic chemicals (including inorganic Carbon).

Second, scientists don't bother to examine ideas that don't make sense. They COULD, for example, examine the chemistry and environment that would have led to silicon based life (which is, in theory, possible). But life on earth is not silicon based, so that would simply not be worth the effort.

Does the fact that sometimes a theory is disproven experimentally stop researchers who are already comitted financially from giving up their grants and walking away?

Of course scientists do bother examining ideas that don't make sense (My forte is Physics and I can assure you that sense, common or otherwise, and theory parted ways a long time ago).

For the purposes of this thread, please Google the term 'shadow biosphere'. Life could still remain Carbon based, have different (and exclusive to 'life as we know it') chemistries, and there are researchers working upon the concept right now.

Finally, it may well be that science identifies several different pathways that life on Earth may have emerged, and all those paths seem to work with no outlandish problems.

Problems currently exist for every pathway concieved, they appear to be dead ends to those pathways and are usually fairly mundane.

We will never know that which of those paths is actually the path that was taken, or if another, unthought of path is the one. I suspect that scientists will then debate probabilities, sure. But at this time, that isn't the idea that is being chased. They are just trying to verify that it COULD be done. After that, there are more questions to be answered, but finding (at least) one path is the big question for today.

What of those paths which are proven experimentally to be dead ends?

Does that stop researchers testing the boundaries and looking for work-arounds?

Does it stop researchers who are already comitted from giving up their grants and walking away?

Science and the scientific method in the real world, doesn't work in the way that is proposed that it does. Hopefully, if we can truthfully discuss its shortcomings as well as its findings, we will be better armed to discern truths.

a reply to: Phantom423

I don't understand your thinking. Why wouldn't scientists be looking for new forms of life on Earth? Why isn't it possible that life forms come and go all the time? Of course, capturing one in the process of development may be a rare event. But I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

NASA Finds New Life (Updated)

Excellent response. I had completely forgotten about that.

On the other hand it does rather make my point. In order to identify this new life form as 'life, but not as we know it', they had to identify that it used a completely different chemical process to all other (known) life on earth.

In other words, had it formed in a jar of peanut butter, using all the available raw chemicals there, it would have looked exactly like every other life form on earth and it would be identified as just another previously unknown life form.

Furthermore, this new life form is a long way down the evolutionary track, a very long way. It even occurs to me that it might well have 'started out' as just a 'normal' terran form. I'd love to see what the folks working on this have to say about it after 8 years. Imma gonna hafta research it if I can.

a reply to: chr0naut

I was using the more publicly understood (and more accurate) definition of 'theory' rather than the 'scientific' definition (the distinction is still quite opinion based and, as a point of argument, is usually irrelevant to that argument, as in this thread).

No it is not a matter of opinion, and it is not irrelevant.

You are discussing science, and there is no room for imprecision when you are discussing science. And you know this.

An hypothesis is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is not an explanation. An hypothesis is a QUESTION (or rather a series of questions).

Hypothesis: Suppose 'X' is an explanation for some observed phenomenon. Does it actually explain that phenomenon or does it run into other difficulties? What would it predict about further related phenomenon? How can this be tested?

A theory is an accepted EXPLANATION. A theory successfully explains the phenomenon it is meant to explain and importantly predicts further phenomena. A theory started out as an hypothesis (or many hypotheses) has been tested and found useful in explaining some phenomenon.

A theory is NOT a guess.

Trying to further an argument by crossing back and forth from everyday non-scientific terminology to scientific terminology and back, and especially trying to pretend that it is irrelevant it not just misleading your audience - it is FLAT OUT LYING to them. It is dishonest and it renders everything else you utter totally meaningless because if words mean whatever you want them to mean then nothing means anything at all.

You know this and you have been called on it so often you immediately have a deflecting answer that tries to cover your backside with crack spackle.

I am bored discussing this over and over and over. I need a little break.

(From Alice in Wonderland)
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

(source)

As in many other respects, the looking glass world, at least as described by Humpty Dumpty, is the inverse of Alice’s everyday world (which is also ours). In the everyday world, names typically have little or no meaning: ‘Alice,’ ‘Emily,’ ‘Jamal,’ ‘Christiano,’ usually do nothing other than denoting an individual. They can certainly have connotations: that’s why there are so many more people called ‘David’ (the heroic king of ancient Israel) than are called ‘Judas’ (the betrayer of Jesus). And we can sometimes infer (though not with perfect certainty) incidental acts about a person from their name: e.g. their sex, their religion (or that of their parents), or their nationality. But names usually tell us little else about their bearers. From the fact that someone is called ‘Grace,’ we can’t infer that they are graceful.

Apart from the fact that most proper names are gendered, so parents don’t usually call a boy ‘Josephine’ or a girl ‘William,’ a person can be given pretty much any name from a very long list.

General terms, on the other hand, cannot be applied arbitrarily. The word ‘tree’ can’t be applied to an egg; and the word ‘egg’ can’t mean a tree. That is because words like these, unlike proper names, have a definite meaning. But in Humpty Dumpty’s world, things are the other way round. Proper names must have a meaning, while any ordinary word, as he tells Alice later, means whatever he wants it to mean–that is, he can stick them on things the way we stick names on people.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

No. they are only looking for life forms that they expect to see there. They have no way of identifying a new, completely novel life form.

They don't have lookup tables to verify that whatever they find conforms to known lifeforms.

They are looking for general evidences of life processes, like metabolization and chemical modification of the foodstuffs from their optimal (and preferentially optimised) form/s.

This might include changes in Ph, levels of available salts and sugars, changes in texture, changes in viscocity, differences in points of phase change (boiling/melting, etc), evidence of colony growth, colour changes, odour and et cetera...

Sure, but not looking in peanut jars.

My point, while using peanut butter as an example, is that we create artificial environments all the time, where the conditions for abiogenesis are highly favourable, and yet those conditions remain sterile.

Regardless if you perform the experiment in the controlled sterility of a lab or in the controlled sterility of a factory, the data is just as available for evaluation. It doesn't change what the raw data is telling us just because the observers put on either lab coats or company overalls.

Please identify one researcher that is looking for new life form ON EARTH, in peanut jars or deep sea vents or anywhere.

You are kidding me? Surely the holy grail of every biology student is to have one's name associated with a new life form (although there are also other goals within biology, too)!

But here's a specific example researcher, researching new and unique life forms, on Earth (contraversial, though her findings might be): Felisa Wolfe-Simon (Wikipedia link)

Certainly people are looking for life outside of Earth. It is many many many orders of magnitude easier to identify a new life form on Mars, say, than on Earth (assuming it exists of course).

I would say that the inverse is true;

It is trivial to gather data, in the environment right where we are, compared with gathering data from more than 54.6 million kilometers away.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

You may want to review this link here:

Origin of Life

It has a pretty comprehensive list of the work that has been done in regards to abiogenesis. It has gone far beyond amino acids. I understand being skeptical about it and admitting that it is a hypothesis, but substantial work HAS been done, so to say there isn't any evidence for it is pretty absurd and not a single one of those philosophical arguments even comes close to that in relation to existence of god or creation.

Oh I think great minds have been dealing with the God questions for a couple thousand yrs longer than science has.

8 mins.

a reply to: chr0naut

Does the fact that sometimes a theory is disproven experimentally stop researchers who are already comitted financially from giving up their grants and walking away?

Careful, your agenda is showing. Please quote an example.

Certainly, when a scientist finds that an hypothesis fails, they want to find out why. It could be because the hypothesis is flat out wrong, but it could also be because they designed the test incorrectly, equipment was bad, or misunderstood the implications, or any of many things. Usually an hypothesis has been picked apart by peers before grant money is sorted out, so there is a pretty good idea that they are on to something. Sometimes even if the hypothesis is just no good, there are still some good ideas in there that can inform the next hypothesis. Sometimes several competing hypotheses are equally useful in many respects but contradictory in others and those contradictions have to be reconciled.

But by the time an hypothesis is accepted as theory, there is seldom room for it to be disproven experimentally. Can you provide me with an example?

With your background in physics, maybe you have an example of a theory (not an hypothesis) that has been disproven experimentally? And were there vested interests illegitimately hanging on to their grants trying to prove that it really was true after all? And does this happen often to theories and researchers all over the world? (and we are not talking about charlatans working in a company lab trying to prove that cigarettes are healthy kinda guys).

Of course scientists do bother examining ideas that don't make sense (My forte is Physics and I can assure you that sense, common or otherwise, and theory parted ways a long time ago).

Quantum Theory makes perfect sense. Its just weird, that's all.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It's simply elementary, my dear reader.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

No it is not a matter of opinion, and it is not irrelevant.

You are discussing science, and there is no room for imprecision when you are discussing science. And you know this.

An hypothesis is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is not an explanation. An hypothesis is a QUESTION (or rather a series of questions).

A hypothesis is not a question, or series of questions. 'How are you feeling today'? is a question.

Scientific Hypothesis From Wikipedia

also, compare Scientific Theory From Wikipedia

Hypothesis: Suppose 'X' is an explanation for some observed phenomenon. Does it actually explain that phenomenon or does it run into other difficulties? What would it predict about further related phenomenon? How can this be tested?

A theory is an accepted EXPLANATION. A theory successfully explains the phenomenon it is meant to explain and importantly predicts further phenomena. A theory started out as an hypothesis (or many hypotheses) has been tested and found useful in explaining some phenomenon.

A theory is NOT a guess.

I do agree that a theory is not a guess.

... but according to popular conception, a hypothesis is an unproven (unevidenced) theory.

The popular definition still works for both the 'scientific hypothesis' & 'scientific theory' definitions, where the weight of what constitutes 'proof' is somewhat higher than usually accepted by the general public.

But, what relevance does the specifc definition of the words 'hypothesis' or 'theory' have to do anyway, in an argument about biological complexity? Surely, it is a side track from the topic.

Trying to further an argument by crossing back and forth from everyday non-scientific terminology to scientific terminology and back, and especially trying to pretend that it is irrelevant it not just misleading your audience - it is FLAT OUT LYING to them. It is dishonest and it renders everything else you utter totally meaningless because if words mean whatever you want them to mean then nothing means anything at all.

Generally, I try and explain things as simply and concisely as possible. In that way, readers can understand my intent, regardless of their education (or pedantry). You see, I don't assume that other readers are unable to evaluate things as you or I do.

If I use commonly understood terms correctly, how is that lying (also, do you begin to see the subtle ad-hominem begin creeping in to your language)?

For instance, you did not specifically mention that you were talking of a 'scientific theory' or 'scientific hypothesis' in those words, you only spoke of 'theory' and 'hypothesis', as did I.

Were you, perhaps, intending to mislead by your use of wording of inexact definition?

It would seem we have, at least, equal culpability in that regard.

You know this and you have been called on it so often you immediately have a deflecting answer that tries to cover your backside with crack spackle.

What florid prose!

I am bored discussing this over and over and over. I need a little break.

Well, you are the one who introduced the issue of fuzzy word definitions.

...and slightly off topic, where do you go to get away from yourself?

a reply to: chr0naut

Is diamond organic? Is soot organic? Are the Fullerenes organic? No, Carbon, on its own, regardless of allotroph, is inorganic.

I forgot to answer this before.

Diamonds are not compounds, so they are not organic compounds.

Compounds have more than one element in them. Organic compounds contain carbon and usually hydrogen. Some compounds that contain carbon, like Carbon Monoxide are not generally considered organic, but they are few and far between.

Basically, my remark stands: you simply cannot do organic chemistry without carbon. It is hypothesized that you can do life chemistry with silicon instead of carbon, but that would not be 'organic' because 'organic' is carbon based. Period.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Is diamond organic? Is soot organic? Are the Fullerenes organic? No, Carbon, on its own, regardless of allotroph, is inorganic.

I forgot to answer this before.

Diamonds are not compounds, so they are not organic compounds.

Compounds have more than one element in them. Organic compounds contain carbon and usually hydrogen. Some compounds that contain carbon, like Carbon Monoxide are not generally considered organic, but they are few and far between.

Basically, my remark stands: you simply cannot do organic chemistry without carbon. It is hypothesized that you can do life chemistry with silicon instead of carbon, but that would not be 'organic' because 'organic' is carbon based. Period.

You ridiculed my statement that the Miller-Urey experiment created organic matter from inorganic matter, suggesting that it must have had Carbon in it at the start and therefore it was organic from the start.

You were wrong. Regardless of your time of month!

a reply to: chr0naut

They are looking for general evidences of life processes, like metabolization and chemical modification of the foodstuffs from their optimal (and preferentially optimised) form/s.

Which, when found in a peanut jar would look EXACTLY like every other modern life form on earth and would therefore immediately disqualify it from being the result of a abiogenesis event in that peanut jar, or if it actually was there would be no way of recognizing it as such.

Your challenge was why don't we see abiogenesis all the time. A 'new' life form, freshly created through an abiogenesis event, would NOT look anything like the modern life on earth after several billions of years of evolution. NOTHING AT ALL.

You just don't get it do you? Newly 'enlivened' life forms simply cannot pop into existence looking like modern life. Heck, creationists have been telling us that for years - according to their calculations the odds against it are 10 to 50,000 or something.

Please make an attempt to grok that and its consequences.

But here's a specific example researcher, researching new and unique life forms, on Earth (contraversial, though her findings might be): Felisa Wolfe-Simon (Wikipedia link)

Thank you, I thought I was going to have a hard time tracking her down. I see she is already running up against difficulties with her findings. More research is required, both by her and by me. I'm going to enjoy furthering my reading here.

However, notice where she is looking: in environments where the 'normal' terran life requirements are lacking. Exotic locations, arsenic pools. Not peanut butter jars. You suggest we should see abiogenesis in peanut butter jars because all the ingrediants for normal, modern life are there. For the umpteenth time: why would you expect to find new, exotic, fresh abiogenesis events in such an environment amid all the standard products of a few billion years of evolution.

I would say that the inverse is true;

It is trivial to gather data, in the environment right where we are, compared with gathering data from more than 54.6 million kilometers away.

Yes, it is trivial to gather data, but it is not trivial to gather the RIGHT DATA, and distinguish information from all the background noise of everything else that is going on.

Again the question is: how do you recognize a novel life form that formed as a result of an new, modern abiogenesis event, from every other existing life forms that have been evolving for billions of years. As an additional problem, how do they survive long enough for you to find them when every other existing life form that has been evolving for billions of years want to eat them? One way, as you have pointed out, is to look in environments that are particularly hostile to 'normal' life, as does Dr. Wolfe-Simon, but that is still not easy.

However, those questions are not in play on Mars. If we do find life on Mars we automatically know several things: one life on Earth is not unique, it happened on two planets on the same solar system, it is therefor likely abundant in the whole universe.

Sure it is harder to study life on Mars, but compared to finding new abiogenesis events on Earth finding any life at all (if it exists) on Mars is a piece of cake. Just the very existence of life on Mars influences our study of life on Earth.

Of course, we are looking for life on Mars, using our experience of life on Earth, and this may be really barking up the wrong tree. What if it isn't carbon based? What if it doesn't produce the waste products we expect? How do we detect it?

a reply to: chr0naut

... but according to popular conception, a hypothesis is an unproven (unevidenced) theory.

An hypothesis is NOT an "unproven (unevidenced) theory". And it is only that 'according' to popular conception' because YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU continue to falsely imply that it is and that it makes no difference.

An hypothesis is an UNTESTED, EVIDENCE BASED, possible explanation for some observed phenomenon.

It is NOT A THEORY, it is a possible explanation.

It is NON UNEVIDENCED, exactly the opposite: it is proposed specifically to explain the EVIDENCE at hand.

It is NOT UNPROVEN, it is untested or not completely tested, and not necessarily widely accepted.

But, what relevance does the specifc definition of the words 'hypothesis' or 'theory' have to do anyway, in an argument about biological complexity? Surely, it is a side track from the topic.

It is a discussion about science. Use science words correctly. Many of these discussions hinge on nitpicking misunderstandings. If you use words in ways that nobody else recognizes there is no basis for discussion of any kind.

If you say that there is a theory of X, meaning 'scientists agree with X but they know its just a guess, isn't that a load of crap', and I have to respond that there is no such theory, its just a couple of people working in one lab, it isn't just a guess, but maybe its wrong maybe its right. And I have to that over and over and over and over and over and over and over... how exactly is that resolving anything, communicating anything, and staying on track.

On the other hand, if you are honest and say the hypothesis is X and these guys are obviously on the wrong track, then we can at least discuss the actual topic instead of trying to constantly restore the context.

Words have meaning.

Generally, I try and explain things as simply and concisely as possible. In that way, readers can understand my intent, regardless of their education (or pedantry). You see, I don't assume that other readers are unable to evaluate things as you or I do.

By telling readers that scientists working on an hypothesis are working on a generally accepted theory, and implying that a scientific theory is just a scientists 'best guess' is not helping them understand, it is you purposely lying to them (because you understand very well the difference and are suppressing it on purpose). That is not education, that is brainwashing, political spin.

If you 'don't assume that other readers are unable to evaluate things as you or I do' then why can't you simply tell them the truth. They can handle the truth, I assure you.

If I use commonly understood terms correctly, how is that lying (also, do you begin to see the subtle ad-hominem begin creeping in to your language)?

Yet, you are not using commonly understood terms correctly. You are using words with two diametrically opposed meanings in their opposite context.

The context is the scientific discussion going on in this thread, but you are using the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as if this is a non-scientific discussion, and claiming that it doesn't matter.

By your reckoning, hypothesis is an unproven non-evidence based theory, and a theory is just at best a best guess. Neither is even remotely true in a discussion involving science. And since you claim to have a science background and that you do actually understand the difference it is flat out lying to your audience.

Words have meanings and consequences.

a reply to: chr0naut

Regardless of your time of month!

Hah, I had a Calculus teacher at uni that drove all the females out of his class after 3 sessions with his 'trouble with typewriter' jokes. Not funny then and not funny now.

signed

#metoo

a reply to: rnaa

Yeah, yeah, replying to myself.

Excellent response. I had completely forgotten about that.

It was indeed an excellent response to my question. Somebody was looking for exotic life on Earth, and if Wolfe-Simon's findings were accurate, they would have had a big impact. Unfortunately, her findings were wrong, and quickly found to be wrong.

One critic reasoned from chemistry alone that what she was seeing could not possibly be correct, and pointed out several bad conclusions drawn from the data. Other labs attempted to duplicate her work and could not get anywhere close.

Now what was actually debunked was that the organism did not have arsenic in its DNA. Wolfe-Simon got that wrong. But what was proved was that is used a 'shockingly' small amount of phosphorus which is still a very interesting finding. What was not determined was whether the organism uses arsenic at all - which again would still be a unique finding.

Also, contrary to the favorite meme of some anti-science propagandists, Wolfe-Simon did not 'ignore the fact that her hypothesis had been debunked' and hang on to her grant and keep going. She left the USGS 5 months after the paper was published, and is working on other research into exobiology (I assume) along side Paul Davies at Arizona State (as a University of Arizona man, I'll keep the sneer to myself, sorta).

a reply to: chr0naut

For the purposes of this thread, please Google the term 'shadow biosphere'. Life could still remain Carbon based, have different (and exclusive to 'life as we know it') chemistries, and there are researchers working upon the concept right now.

Yes. Another good response.

Again I will point out that they are not looking in peanut butter jars.