You think so?
I know so, because I am the author of the thread. Please stay on topic.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You think so?
Furthermore, the fact that DNA-based replication still relies on RNA as an intermediary is highly suggestive that an earlier RNA-only process was later upgraded by adding the DNA process on top.
Non science types obsess over "proof". As you say, it's not about that.Evidence not "proof". Though right now there only is evidence for abiogenesis it is not a proven concept yet. There is no absolute proof in the sciences, only evidence for or against a concept.
This is true, however, observation indicates that consciousness derives from many forms of life and therefore any good theory of abiogenesis also needs to established a foundation that can bridge this future gap.
The biggest problem in abiogenesis is the inclusion of the mythology of randomness. This mythology allows one to gloss over the unknowns, and pretend this is a done deal, using a God of Random to bridge the gaps. This is no different that a modified Creationists approach, using a god that is less clever then the Creationists God. Science needs to get rid of the random prosthesis and stick to chemical logic.
For example, DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. RNA can hold more chemically attached water per unit of weight than DNA, but since DNA is much larger, it is more hydrated. Hydration is the chemical attachment of water, therefore DNA and RNA are the most water friendly molecules in the cell. Water pushes organic evolution in ways that minimize the potential in water. This applies to life as well as consciousness. Randomness (?) or the more relevant fractal nature of cause and effect outcomes have no causative effect on the eventual outcomes of anything. Natural Laws (in chemistry in particular), nature of the environment are the determining the outcome of cause and effect relationships.
This is common misconception. Abiogenesis is not a theory but simply a term denoting the emergence of life from non-life. So really there is nothing to argue about, unless you maintain that there was always life here on Earth, even when it was coalescing from an accretion disc of gas and dust. If you agree that there was a time before life appeared, then you have no quarrel with abiogenesis. The issue that arises is how abiogenesis took place, not that it did so.There is no scientific evidence of abiogenesis. And no way to test the claims too. But suppose abiogenesis did indeed create life. Then how do you explain our arrival/emergence, with our subjective awareness? Is asking such question not okay?
This is Wellwisher. You can expect an obsessive insistence on the special properties of water, possibly with a digression into H-bonding, and a rambling argument about a mangled version of entropy. Oh, and if things go badly, "liberals" may make a cameo appearance. He has been doing the same thing for years on other forums.Actually no, the hypothesis of abiogenesis simply deals with the evolution of non-life chemicals to the earliest known simple life forms, and has no direct relation with the evolution of consciousness, which is intimately involved with the later evolution of the brain and nervous system.
Terrible science logic to justify a religious agenda, and actually no relationship to the science of abiogenesis. The mythology of randomness is in the Theistic Creationist perspective that any form of randomness plays a role in whether abiogenesis and evolution takes place,
Abiogenesis deals with the steps of the evolution of non-life chemistry,nucleotides (amino acids), to RNA and than DNA and simple reproducable microbe life form. Evolution takes over from there, and as the foundation of the evolution of primative brains and nervous systems , and than the evolution of the mind and consciousness in complex brains and the resulting brains, and the mind and consciousness.
Let;s deal with first things first.
This is common misconception. Abiogenesis is not a theory but simply a term denoting the emergence of life from non-life. So really there is nothing to argue about, unless you maintain that there was always life here on Earth, even when it was coalescing from an accretion disc of gas and dust. If you agree that there was a time before life appeared, then you have no quarrel with abiogenesis. The issue that arises is how abiogenesis took place, not that it did so.
As for your question about how what we call "consciousness" has arisen yes I have an explanation for that, but you won't like it and it is not the subject of this thread.
Enough of philosophy, we can take this up in another thread. These kinds of arguments are rife in the Nyaya-Maddhyamaka debate about reality and truth.
Yes I think there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution in that there is a well-worked out theory of evolution, supported by a masses of observation, whereas for abiogenesis all we have are some promising hypotheses for parts of what remains a jigsaw with most of the pieces missing.Your correct abiogenesis is not a theory, actually neither is the science of evolution. Both sciences represent many proposed hypothesis for falsification. At present the science of abiogensis is many hypothesis concerning the mechanisms and the biochemistry for non-life chemicals forming the basis for RNA, and the mechanism of early reproduction and the evolution of elements of metabolism like the formation of functional organic phosphates from inorganic phosphates as in: Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth and an earlier reference in another thread which I will address more later.
I believe @Revoltingest proposed that abiogenesis was at present 'hypothetical.' I believe it is more than that, and actual hypothesis are proposed and falsified concerning the mechanisms and the biochemistry of abiogenesis as cited in the various articles in this thread..
This thread is on abiogenesis the evolution of non-life chemicals to simple life forms. Please stay on topic with actual science references and a coherent argument, which is lacking from your posts in the past.
I will start a thread later on the evolution of consciousness and the mind and the relationship to the brain late.
May be a bit of philosophy is required. I know that you know sAmkhya exceedingly well and may be bored yet let me record this here.
RNA and then DNA and bacteria, and then numerous forms are forms of Prakriti-Nature and have no life-consciousness of their own. ...
Well of course not! How abiogenesis occurred remains one of the most intriguing problems in modern science.There is no science reference to show that life-intelligence emerged from RNA. There are many theories. No one denies evolution of chemical structure and forms but that does not mean that you have explained origin of life.
Y
Perhaps one might say that there is a fact of evolution, i.e. we have observed organisms to evolve, and there is a theory of how this happens. For abiogenesis, by contrast, we have again the fact that once there was no life and now there is, ergo abiogenesis has indisputably taken place, but in this case we don't yet have a coherent theory of how it occurred.
Would you accept that characterisation?
This is common misconception. Abiogenesis is not a theory but simply a term denoting the emergence of life from non-life. So really there is nothing to argue about, unless you maintain that there was always life here on Earth, even when it was coalescing from an accretion disc of gas and dust. If you agree that there was a time before life appeared, then you have no quarrel with abiogenesis. The issue that arises is how abiogenesis took place, not that it did so.
As for your question about how what we call "consciousness" has arisen yes I have an explanation for that, but you won't like it and it is not the subject of this thread.
By fact I meant that we observe organisms to evolve, (peppered moth, antibiotic resistance etc). But I take your point about creationists wilfully misunderstanding the difference between this and the theory of the process.I do not like the use of fact, and use of theory in terms of the science of evolution, because, in part, these terms represent a IUD minefield for Creationist and those with a religious agenda against science. Yes, evolution is by far better documented beyond any reasonable doubt, but Fundamentalist Creationists and others with a religious agenda use phony arguments against both with 'blind faith.'
I do not believe the assertion of 'we don't yet have a coherent theory of how it occurred' is accurate. It is true there are still unknowns, but the basics of what needs to be falsified as far as the goals of falsification of the mechanisms and biochemistry are clear and specific. These issues will be addressed in this thread based on the recent research.
But why do you, again, jump to sentient life. We are not concerned with sentient life here, - unless you are claiming that the most primitive archaea were already sentient. Is that your claim? If so on what grounds?I have no problem with study of abiogenesis at all. I am a chemist.
My point is different. You may or may not find the following relevant and may resort to sarcasm and ridicule as is common. Yet I am recording my understanding.
Synthesis of RNA and then all bodily chemicals will not lead to sentient life, since sentience is property of the subject (you) and not property of body chemicals or the whole body or any part thereof. This is empirically seen in dead bodies. All chemicals and all organs existing, a life-less body does not say "I exist". So, the axiom that life is organisation of chemicals is wrong. We do not know what life is.
...
I have no problem with study of abiogenesis at all. I am a chemist.
My point is different. You may or may not find the following relevant and may resort to sarcasm and ridicule as is common. Yet I am recording my understanding for record.
Synthesis of RNA and then all bodily chemicals will not lead to sentient life, since sentience is property of the subject (you) and not property of body chemicals or the whole body or any part thereof. This is empirically seen in dead bodies. All chemicals and all organs existing, a life-less body does not say "I exist". So, the axiom that life is organisation of chemicals is wrong. We do not know what life is.
...
By fact I meant that we observe organisms to evolve, (peppered moth, antibiotic resistance etc). But I take your point about creationists wilfully misunderstanding the difference between this and the theory of the process.
I am very intrigued by your view that we have a theory of abiogenesis. I expect you are closer to the state of the art on this than I am and I look forward to your further explanations of which parts are now on solid enough foundations to qualify as a theory.
Abiogenesis is appearing in a number of threads off topic There were many negative views of abiogensis. This is the inspiration for this thread.
This version actually proposes the 'warm pond' hypothesis,' but it could have taken place in several different environments.
First reference:
LIFE'S FIRST SPARK RE-CREATED IN THE LABORATORY
A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.
Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.
"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.
However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.
Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.
"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."
Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland's team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth's primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone."
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland's team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated."