Scientific advances in abiogenesis

[Justatruthseeker]

Because he was formed from the Dust of the earth, not one specific form of it.....

 

[atanu]

On the contrary, when we look at various other animals and we see various levels of awareness, self-awareness, and self-consciousness. It is clear from comparative studies that consciousness *does* evolve.

NOT ACTUALLY. Same transparent light may appear as red, blue, green or 'dark', depending on the colour of veil on it.

 

[atanu]

.
It's simple, but false. Doing even a bit of study of biochemistry shows just how false it is. Without oxygen, the whole system producing ATP fails. And ATP is the energy currency of the body.

In that case, simply pump in oxygen to revive a dead body. Is it so simple? No. We do not know what life is.

We used to believe, on account of power of advertisement, that a certain commercially marketed powder called 'Glucon -D' was energy. But dead bodies do not revive with Glucon D or any other means.

 

[ecco]

We used to believe, on account of power of advertisement, that a certain commercially marketed powder called 'Glucon -D' was energy.

"WE"? Maybe you did. I didn't.

 

[Polymath257]

NOT ACTUALLY. Same transparent light may appear as red, blue, green or 'dark', depending on the colour of veil on it.

I fail to see any relevance. The differences in perceived color are well explained by the way our sense of sight actually works physically.

 

[Polymath257]

In that case, simply pump in oxygen to revive a dead body. Is it so simple? No. We do not know what life is.

We used to believe, on account of power of advertisement, that a certain commercially marketed powder called 'Glucon -D' was energy. But dead bodies do not revive with Glucon D or any other means.

No, it isn't that simple. Once the oxygen is deprived for a while, other reactions set in and the simple addition of oxygen again doens't reverse them. Also, there is a problem with getting the oxygen to the necessary locations. Blood does that while we are alive, but without a pumping heart, the oxygen isn't delivered and the wastes are not taken away.

You are, in essence, asking for the reversal of a collection of chemical reactions which happen at very precise locations all over the body. For the conceivable future, that isn't going to happen.

but that doesn't mean that life isn't fundamentally a chemical process. We know that it is from extensive studies of biochemistry.

 

[David T]

You dumbed it down alright. You cut and pasted a Wiki page.

• This page was last edited on 16 October 2018, at 03:22 (UTC).

You did so with no link and no attribution.

From the Wiki page I followed the link for Greek mythology and searched for the word "clay". "Clay" was not found. No references to man being created from clay.

From the Wiki page I followed the link for Sumarian mythology and searched for the word "clay". I found four references...

Sumerian myths ... written on a series of fractured clay tablets). ...These tablets were also made of stone clay or stone, and they used a small pick to make the symbols.
...
pour libations into the dead person's grave through a clay pipe,
...
Barret, C. E. (2007). "Was dust their food and clay their bread?:
​

No references to man being created from clay.

​

From the Wiki page I followed the link for Sumarian mythology and searched for the word "clay".

Others say humans are molded from clay by the god Khnum. But overall, the focus of the creation myths is the establishment of cosmic order rather than the special place of humans within it.
​

Scant reference to man being created from clay.

​

Dumb indeed. You copied and pasted an unattributed page. You gave no indication that it was a cut and paste.

I found the page. I took the time to follow its links and found the details do not support your own argument. Had you done that, maybe you would not have posted the cut and paste that doesn't support your argument and saved yourself some embarrassment.

Please stop the church lady thing already its clueless arbitrary nonsense. Of course its cut and paste so what.

I made a simple and clear point. Learn to read. Evolve. Btw i already know that reading comprehension is low in religion so your inability to actually read ancient metaphysics isnt suprising. i actually have a degree in theology. While i know its worthless in application to the bible its a fantastic psychology tool. Whats your background... retail? Please stict to quantum mechanice or string theory or the multiverse or marvel movies all easy stuff.

 

[gnostic]

In that case, simply pump in oxygen to revive a dead body. Is it so simple? No. We do not know what life is.

Why would you attempt to pump oxygen in a body that's already dead?

You know that's not what Polymath about the oxygen and brain.

The person have to be alive, hence a living body required a living brain. Plus, the brain required some basic functions, that would operate the heart and lungs.

Pumping oxygen into a dead brain won't revive and regenerate the brain, so doing such thing would be pointless act.

 

[ecco]

Please stop the church lady thing already its clueless arbitrary nonsense. Of course its cut and paste so what.

1. You failed to indicate it was cut and paste.
2. You provided no link to it.
3. You tried to make it look like it was something you had written.

Of course I knew that you you hadn't written it because it was reasonably clear and concise. It was wrong, but it was clear and concise. Quite different from what you normally post like the following.

I made a simple and clear point. Learn to read. Evolve. Btw i already know that reading comprehension is low in religion so your inability to actually read ancient metaphysics isnt suprising. i actually have a degree in theology. While i know its worthless in application to the bible its a fantastic psychology tool. Whats your background... retail? Please stict to quantum mechanice or string theory or the multiverse or marvel movies all easy stuff.

Can you explain why someone who has a college degree would post an article that contradicts his own argument?

You challenge me to "Learn to read." But clearly I did read what you posted. I found the original article. I read through the original article. I follow links from the original to supporting articles. I read the supporting articles. I found that the supporting articles did not back up your claims.

It's obvious that you are one who does not read and understand what he is posting.

 

[ecco]

Why would you attempt to pump oxygen in a body that's already dead?

You know that's not what Polymath about the oxygen and brain.

The person have to be alive, hence a living body required a living brain. Plus, the brain required some basic functions, that would operate the heart and lungs.

Pumping oxygen into a dead brain won't revive and regenerate the brain, so doing such thing would be pointless act.

Not to be too picky, and obviously off topic, but when a person flat-lines in a hospital setting the heart can be massaged to send oxygen-carrying blood to the brain.

 

[gnostic]

all i ever said was abiogenisis was self evident and old and even a huge number of metaphysics stories has it fundeme tal.

Myths that you have listed are not abiogenesis. They are merely stories of different gods creating humans from clay or soil, and none of them are falsifiable.

They are creation myths, not abiogenesis

And as to metaphysical stories are merely stories, therefore have nothing to do with science.

The only person who is Ken Ham clone is apparently you, since you and he believed in creation stories.

Again, only theist would use scientism, as you have done. That you would continue to use "scientism" again, just showed us you are not scientist, particularly you continue to evade ecco's request to cite valid sources for your ranting claims.

 

[gnostic]

Not to be too picky, and obviously off topic, but when a person flat-lines in a hospital setting the heart can be massaged to send oxygen-carrying blood to the brain.

True, that it is possible to revive person, but if the person have been dead too long.

I am no doctor, but we all know if the the brain don’t get enough oxygen, there is high probability even if person revive, he would permanently have brain damage, if not brain dead.

But if is the later (brain dead), then death is preferable, then being tied to machine.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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."

I posted this on chess.com in a mathematically affluent group. One reply that I am not smart enough to evaluate myself was:

"I think it is worth noting that...
1. The RNA synthesis on an old earth would not go in clean cycles (the edition of water and evaporation) as did in the experiment.
2. The RNA is void of any information.
3. RNA is not a life make.
4. RNA is unstable and breaks down quickly (the main objection to the RNA world hypothesis)"

 

[David T]

1. You failed to indicate it was cut and paste.
2. You provided no link to it.
3. You tried to make it look like it was something you had written.

Of course I knew that you you hadn't written it because it was reasonably clear and concise. It was wrong, but it was clear and concise. Quite different from what you normally post like the following.



Can you explain why someone who has a college degree would post an article that contradicts his own argument?

You challenge me to "Learn to read." But clearly I did read what you posted. I found the original article. I read through the original article. I follow links from the original to supporting articles. I read the supporting articles. I found that the supporting articles did not back up your claims.

It's obvious that you are one who does not read and understand what he is posting.

Uh no i didnt. Ok i am talkimg to a creationist.

 

[David T]

Myths that you have listed are not abiogenesis. They are merely stories of different gods creating humans from clay or soil, and none of them are falsifiable.

They are creation myths, not abiogenesis

And as to metaphysical stories are merely stories, therefore have nothing to do with science.

The only person who is Ken Ham clone is apparently you, since you and he believed in creation stories.

Again, only theist would use scientism, as you have done. That you would continue to use "scientism" again, just showed us you are not scientist, particularly you continue to evade ecco's request to cite valid sources for your ranting claims.

Learn to read or stict to easy stuff. You have zero clue what ypu are talikng about. You have read it exactly like the whackiest in religion. Eve. Many religious get this clearly you dont. Pitiful.

 

[shunyadragon]

I posted this on chess.com in a mathematically affluent group. One reply that I am not smart enough to evaluate myself was:


"I think it is worth noting that...
1. The RNA synthesis on an old earth would not go in clean cycles (the edition of water and evaporation) as did in the experiment.

Science does not propose that RNA synthesis would 'go in clean cycles,'

2. The RNA is void of any information.

Not in viruses.

3. RNA is not a life make.

This is the only completely true statement here. I play chess and fully realize chess players are unreliable source,

4. RNA is unstable and breaks down quickly (the main objection to the RNA world hypothesis)"

It is one of the objections to the RNA hypothesis, but not conclusive. If RNA forms in a priotein coat it is stable as in a primitive cell.

There are no claims at present the process is completely known. At present science is only falsifying the hypothesis for the different mechanism and processes. 'Arguing from ignorance,' does not negatethe science of abiogenesis, which is a work in progress.

 

[atanu]

Why would you attempt to pump oxygen in a body that's already dead?

You know that's not what Polymath about the oxygen and brain.

The person have to be alive, hence a living body required a living brain. Plus, the brain required some basic functions, that would operate the heart and lungs.

Pumping oxygen into a dead brain won't revive and regenerate the brain, so doing such thing would be pointless act.

I know it is pointless act. I wanted you to say it.

The alternative is ‘chemical structure’/‘evolution’/‘nature’ did it. Which are also pointless.

We say that gnosis is fundamental nature of existence.

 

[atanu]

No, it isn't that simple. Once the oxygen is deprived for a while, other reactions set in and the simple addition of oxygen again doens't reverse them. Also, there is a problem with getting the oxygen to the necessary locations. Blood does that while we are alive, but without a pumping heart, the oxygen isn't delivered and the wastes are not taken away.

You are, in essence, asking for the reversal of a collection of chemical reactions which happen at very precise locations all over the body. For the conceivable future, that isn't going to happen.

but that doesn't mean that life isn't fundamentally a chemical process. We know that it is from extensive studies of biochemistry.

Bravo. This much only can be said from POV of empicism. Science, I believe, is vaster.

What you are saying is that a group of chemicals act in some synergistic fashion, following certain Kinetic equation, and there is production of consciousness -- slow at first, rapid in middle ages, again slowling down and vanishing with death. At its simplest form, this is first order chemical kinetics, governing generation of consciousness.

So. Let us assume that you are correct and let us assume that we know the critical ingredints and conditions that enable this production of consciousness. In that case, would you say that the chemicals are the object and subject both? Then who are you and what is your competence to know your source? In short, what is the mechanism of this grand production?

 

[Polymath257]

Bravo. This much only can be said from POV of empicism. Science, I believe, is vaster.

What you are saying is that a group of chemicals act in some synergistic fashion, following certain Kinetic equation, and there is production of consciousness -- slow at first, rapid in middle ages, again slowling down and vanishing with death. At its simplest form, this is first order chemical kinetics, governing generation of consciousness.

So. Let us assume that you are correct and let us assume that we know the critical ingredints and conditions that enable this production of consciousness. In that case, would you say that the chemicals are the object and subject both? Then who are you and what is your competence to know your source? In short, what is the mechanism of this grand production?

Truthfully, I don't get how you use the words 'subject' and 'object' here. I *am* the various chemical processes in the sense that *I* only exist when those processes exist and have certain properties.

I have 'competence to know' because of how humans (including me) evolved: our senses developed to give us information about the world around us. That is why we can use our senses to learn about the world. Our minds evolved to process information. That is why we can use logic to learn more. But they are far from perfect. That is why we need to test all of our ideas. I'm not sure what you are asking about when you mention a 'source'? A source of what?

We are currently in the process of figuring out what the mechanism is of this grand production. There is likely to be no simple answer, but rather multiple answers based on the particular mental activity being questioned. I'm not sure what answer you are looking for past that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know it is pointless act. I wanted you to say it.

The alternative is ‘chemical structure’/‘evolution’/‘nature’ did it. Which are also pointless.

We say that gnosis is fundamental nature of existence.

Simply an assertion of belief seriously rejecting and neglecting the matter of fact science which is the subject of the thread Yes it is a pointless act to make assertions based on belief not science.