Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
the ability to digest lactose, which seems to have happened in humans some time in the past 10,000 years.

This is an absurd postulate. All humans have had, and always will have, the lactase gene, otherwise infants would not have been able to drink their mother's milk during development.

Have you considered that you are the one that "continues to show your ignorance"?

(Facepalm#2)
Sorry, I should have said 'the ability to digest lactose into adulthood'. I was presuming that the spreading of the lactose tolerance in adults gene is more widely known than it appears to be.

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong this shows that complex amino acids can indeed occur. If you don't like this the amino acids glycine, alanine and glutamic acid have been found on meteorites, suggesting they can form spontaneously in a variety of environments. Its believed that DNA just made more complicated chains as life progressed.

If you really want to learn NASA us a good place to start. The reason is simple they are studying how and where life can be created in astrobiology. Cant find aliens if we dont know how they are created.


nai.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Facepalm#2)
Sorry, I should have said 'the ability to digest lactose into adulthood'. I was presuming that the spreading of the lactose tolerance in adults gene is more widely known than it appears to be.

Lactase is a gene that can remain turned on past adolescence. There is no separate gene for lactase persistence into adulthood, it is controlled by epigenetic mechanisms. A study narrowed it down to the metyhlation or non-methylation of the Lactase gene (an epigenetic mechanism)

"an epigenome-wide approach... identified a differentially methylated position in the LCT (lactase) promoter where methylation levels are associated with the... persistence/non-persistence phenotype and lactase enzymatic activity" Source

I don't expect most people to keep up with scientific literature, but you should stop calling other people dumb when you're speaking ignorantly on a topic.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Wrong this shows that complex amino acids can indeed occur. If you don't like this the amino acids glycine, alanine and glutamic acid have been found on meteorites, suggesting they can form spontaneously in a variety of environments. Its believed that DNA just made more complicated chains as life progressed.

I never argued that amino acids do not occur naturally. Also, You're mistaking amino acids for polypeptides. Polypeptides/quaternary proteins are chains of amino acid building blocks. The presence of amino acid building blocks would be another hurdle for the spontaneous formation of life that I did not address in my OP.

a reply to: cooperton

I told you where to look but seems you want me to spoon feed you the research. This isnt my area of expertise however so im not willing to research this at this time. But i will try again here's research from an astrobiologist explaining all that stuff you think is impossible.

nai.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Facepalm#2)
Sorry, I should have said 'the ability to digest lactose into adulthood'. I was presuming that the spreading of the lactose tolerance in adults gene is more widely known than it appears to be.

Lactase is a gene that can remain turned on past adolescence. There is no separate gene for lactase persistence into adulthood, it is controlled by epigenetic mechanisms. A study narrowed it down to the metyhlation or non-methylation of the Lactase gene (an epigenetic mechanism)

"an epigenome-wide approach... identified a differentially methylated position in the LCT (lactase) promoter where methylation levels are associated with the... persistence/non-persistence phenotype and lactase enzymatic activity" Source

I don't expect most people to keep up with scientific literature, but you should stop calling other people dumb when you're speaking ignorantly on a topic.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Wrong this shows that complex amino acids can indeed occur. If you don't like this the amino acids glycine, alanine and glutamic acid have been found on meteorites, suggesting they can form spontaneously in a variety of environments. Its believed that DNA just made more complicated chains as life progressed.

I never argued that amino acids do not occur naturally. Also, You're mistaking amino acids for polypeptides. Polypeptides/quaternary proteins are chains of amino acid building blocks. The presence of amino acid building blocks would be another hurdle for the spontaneous formation of life that I did not address in my OP.

Her e's a nice handy article.
And this is a recent mutation, within the past 10,000 years, that demonstrates human evolution. Which is my point.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

I told you where to look but seems you want me to spoon feed you the research. This isnt my area of expertise however so im not willing to research this at this time. But i will try again here's research from an astrobiologist explaining all that stuff you think is impossible.

nai.nasa.gov...

They raise similar questions as I did in the OP, such as the necessity of a proton pump to establish a gradient for metabolism. I see no solution offered, besides theoretical speculations, and 'evolution did it' rhetoric. What part of their research demonstrates the ability to make the leap from non-life to life? Do you even know what they were researching? Or did you just send me an article hoping it would shut me up?

The extent of their actual lab work was testing the thermostability of enzymes. This, again, in no way offers an explanation to the dilemma I addressed in my OP

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Her e's a nice handy article.
And this is a recent mutation, within the past 10,000 years, that demonstrates human evolution. Which is my point.

That article is 6 years old, not peer-reviewed, and does not offer any empirical evidence for it's claims about lactase persistence "evolving" 10,000 years ago. The peer-reviewed article I showed you earlier is from 2018:

Epigenetics and the Lactase Gene

They demonstrated that lactase persistence into adulthood is an epigenetic mechanism, which means your body leaves the lactase gene turned on or off based on methylation of the gene promoter. There is no new gene or new mutation. All genes have similar forms of epigenetic mechanisms to turn them on or off - epigenetics falls under the "homeostasis" category in my OP.

The article you presented is one of the many fairy tale evolution mythological writings that are not based in any sort of empirical data.

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!

One of my favorite examples of drastic speciation is that of the whale. A cursury glance into the fossil record of these animals shows a clear path that shows how drastic some animal body shapes have changed over a long time.

Or a more subtle change is the difference between the various members of horselike animals which cannot inter breed. But some can. Remember that any dog can breed with another dog. But zebras can’t produce viable offspring with a horse. And horses cannot produce viable offspring with a donkey. The lines are just far enough apart that their children will always be sterile.

a reply to: cooperton

maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it. the thread you made on that topic was very lacking on technical details and i am sure there are a lot of questions about the mechanics of your hypothesis. maybe we can even help you devise a means of testing it for falsifiability. otherwise there is just no way to prove your ideas are better than the theory of evolution. its your word against thousands of credited professionals who can show their work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it. the thread you made on that topic was very lacking on technical details and i am sure there are a lot of questions about the mechanics of your hypothesis. maybe we can even help you devise a means of testing it for falsifiability. otherwise there is just no way to prove your ideas are better than the theory of evolution. its your word against thousands of credited professionals who can show their work.

If you have questions about my thoughts on Creation let's talk in this thread

a reply to: cooperton

fair enough, but I will reference your responses if they become related here.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it. the thread you made on that topic was very lacking on technical details and i am sure there are a lot of questions about the mechanics of your hypothesis. maybe we can even help you devise a means of testing it for falsifiability. otherwise there is just no way to prove your ideas are better than the theory of evolution. its your word against thousands of credited professionals who can show their work.

We've never created life. We don't understand how life was even created, in the first place!

Science knows the building blocks of life.

It should be very simple for us to re-create any sort of life form? Not at all...


Theories have now looked into concepts beyond our known physical world, as perhaps metaphysical.

Not a creator, or God, of course!

originally posted by: turbonium1
We've never created life. We don't understand how life was even created, in the first place!

Science knows the building blocks of life.

It should be very simple for us to re-create any sort of life form? Not at all...

You've already been told by numerous people why that argument is so bad, yet you just keep making it. There is literally no reason to think scientists should have done it or figured it all out by now. That's idiotic. Science is young. There is still much to learn. LMAO at calling that simple. Durrr, we know how nuclear nulclear fusion works so why haven't we created a star yet??? That should be simple based on your logic.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
We've never created life. We don't understand how life was even created, in the first place!

Science knows the building blocks of life.

It should be very simple for us to re-create any sort of life form? Not at all...

You've already been told by numerous people why that argument is so bad, yet you just keep making it. There is literally no reason to think scientists should have done it or figured it all out by now. That's idiotic. Science is young. There is still much to learn. LMAO at calling that simple. Durrr, we know how nuclear nulclear fusion works so why haven't we created a star yet??? That should be simple based on your logic.

I'm not saying life IS simple to create. That is their argument, in essence. Because they believe life can be created in a random soup, it follows they would believe life is very simple to create. It's so easy, it happens by chance. Pure dumb luck can create life, so intelligent humans should have no problem, with their knowledge. We know the parts, the way it functions. Random soups take luck, and time, to create life!


A totally idiotic argument, indeed. But they support it, no matter how absurd.

My argument is the complete opposite of theirs. I believe life is incredibly complex, and without far greater intelligence than we have today, it will remain an 'impossible dream'.

originally posted by: Barcs

You've already been told by numerous people why that argument is so bad, yet you just keep making it.

You think it is bad simply because it argues against your belief system. It's pretty simple logic:

1) intelligent beings (humans) cannot create life
2) life exists
3) Therefore, life must exist from something more intelligent, and not less intelligent, than the human being

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
We've never created life. We don't understand how life was even created, in the first place!

Science knows the building blocks of life.

It should be very simple for us to re-create any sort of life form? Not at all...

You've already been told by numerous people why that argument is so bad, yet you just keep making it. There is literally no reason to think scientists should have done it or figured it all out by now. That's idiotic. Science is young. There is still much to learn. LMAO at calling that simple. Durrr, we know how nuclear nulclear fusion works so why haven't we created a star yet??? That should be simple based on your logic.

I'm not saying life IS simple to create. That is their argument, in essence.

No, it's not the argument. Not in essence nor in fact. You're taking your personal interpretation of a single hypothesis and restating it as though biochemists claim that this is definitively how life began on earth.

Because they believe life can be created in a random soup, it follows they would believe life is very simple to create.

Why does it follow? It only follows that illogical course if one doesn't understand the science and are reacting out of anger or frustration, much like a child having a tantrum, because they feel that a measly little Hypothesis threatens their faith. Your faith can't be grounded in anything particularly solid if it can be so shaken by a hypothesis.

It's so easy, it happens by chance. Pure dumb luck can create life, so intelligent humans should have no problem, with their knowledge. We know the parts, the way it functions. Random soups take luck, and time, to create life!

You keep inserting the "creation" theme into am argument where it has no place. A natural chemical process isn't the same thing as an outside source creating something in a lab which is precisely what your wording equates it to.

A totally idiotic argument, indeed. But they support it, no matter how absurd.

The only idiot supporting this argument is you because it exists nowhere outside of your own mind.

My argument is the complete opposite of theirs. I believe life is incredibly complex, and without far greater intelligence than we have today, it will remain an 'impossible dream'.
H

Again, all you do with such ridiculous statements is demonstrate that you don't understand the first thing about a particular area of study that you disagree with because it makes your god sad. You don't falsify anything with either science or logic. Nothing at all to,support,your position besides the assertion that is biochemists think it could have happened naturally them ergo, "they think it's easy and I think that they're wrong and life is sooperdy dooperdy complex therefore a sentient being more powerful and intelligent than Homo Sapiens Sapiens must be the only possible origin of life and because it's all magical I don't have to explain things like created the creator and the infinite loop that springs eternal from such".

Does that about cover it?

originally posted by: peter vlar
I don't have to explain things like created the creator and the infinite loop that springs eternal from such".

So you think the leap from nothing to something is better explained by randomness than an intelligent force? As if it already wasn't an unimaginable leap, you think it was an accident? That is so painfully illogical. Yeah obviously the evolution parade is going to toot your horn, but actually think for your self man. That's ridiculous.

The fact that you mock people who have hope in higher intelligence is so masochistic it's mind-boggling. As if your nihilistic perspective based in a baseless evolutionary theory would actually give any meaning, purpose, value, or ethical progress in their life. It is absurd. Especially the zeal with which you express your inherently meaningless opinions.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you think the leap from nothing to something is better explained by randomness than an intelligent force? As if it already wasn't an unimaginable leap, you think it was an accident? That is so painfully illogical.

Come on Coop, shouldn't we all play by the same rules you're establishing here.

How/why is the leap better explained by an intelligent force?

If we don't know or understand how it got started (hence it seeming "random"), then why should this automatically point to an "intelligent force", which we have no evidence for as far as I know?

Attacking evolution is a misguided endeavor, and you are smart enough to know this. You don't like the idea that we evolved from the chimp? Well, good news for you - it doesn't necessarily negate the existence of your god. Look at the bigger picture - life, not the beings themselves. Your hypothesis should focus on the most fundamental level of reality since that's where this force must've started.

Or maybe you can think more about why Evolution threatens you and your belief system? If this omniscient being or force is just that, omniscient, then this is all part of its grand blueprint, isn't it? If that's the case, then you can sit back with a cold beer and take solace in knowing your god is responsible for evolution too.

We're intelligent enough, but compared to knowing everything about the universe, we don't even register on the spectrum. Moral of the story, "I don't know" has to be the proper answer if we're all going to be honest with each other.

Am I wrong?

double post

double post

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Your hypothesis should focus on the most fundamental level of reality since that's where this force must've started.

The fundamental forces of nature all act according to meticulous physical laws. These laws are mathematically predictable. Many intelligent humans struggle to totally grasp mathematics, yet they are universal in our cosmos. To neglect the fact that the implementation of mathematics requires intelligence would be the utmost burial of your head in the sand. Matter is naught, biology is naught, life as we know it is naught without these fundamental forces acting in perpetuity. This is the fundamental level of reality. To think something random gave rise to the mathematical order of the cosmos is about as illogical as it gets.

Or maybe you can think more about why Evolution threatens you and your belief system? If this omniscient being or force is just that, omniscient, then this is all part of its grand blueprint, isn't it? If that's the case, then you can sit back with a cold beer and take solace in knowing your god is responsible for evolution too.

I held to the belief in evolution for a long time, but it eventually reached the point where it no longer matched the over-arching worldview, and the phenomenal complexity seen on the micro and macro scale of the cosmos. Especially the human being. If anything, real science is the greatest threat to evolution. But the dogmatic degree of the theory of evolution has matched the spanish inquisition perpetrated by catholics. You are blackballed if you disagree with evolutionary theory, and we are taught even before school the narrative of dinosaurs being hundreds of millions of years old, despite there being abundant evidence for the contrary.

Moral of the story, "I don't know" has to be the proper answer if we're all going to be honest with each other.

Am I wrong?

correct. Which was why my premise was disproving evolutionary theory, rather than proving my speculative thoughts on the matter. Socrates nailed it on point: to admit you do not know is the beginning of true knowledge. An adamant belief in evolutionary theory prevents empirical evidence from persuading you about the deeper, more fundamental truths of reality. This is what I realized in my own experience