Abiogenesis ─ and another biochemical angle

[Polymath257]

That's life as observed from the outside looking in. It says nothing about inner experience, and what presents itself from within.

That inner experience only exists for those organisms with a nervous system. it is not fundamental to life. bacteria, for example, don't have an 'inner experience'.

And that inner experience is produced by the chemical properties of the nervous system, so even that is ultimately chemistry.

 

[osgart]

That inner experience only exists for those organisms with a nervous system. it is not fundamental to life. bacteria, for example, don't have an 'inner experience'.

And that inner experience is produced by the chemical properties of the nervous system, so even that is ultimately chemistry.

So what about identity self? What exactly is that in your terms?

 

[blü 2]

The first problem is, the researchers will not be able to prove DAP existed billion years ago.

No, the best they could do is show that the claim is plausible given our understanding of the condition of the earth four billion years ago.

It would be like me saying unicorns created life.

Actually, your example has parallels to the familar claim that God created life by magic.

Others would expected me to show fossils evidence at the very least.

We have fossil evidence of proto-life existing on earth considerably more than 3.5 bn years ago. But as for direct evidence of the very first self-reproducing cell, until we've done our homework, we don't even know what we're specifically looking for. And the odds that this particular piece of evidence still exists after billions of years are ─ shall we say ─ minimal.

A better model for abiogenesis would begin with water, since that was there from day one and never changes cover time.

Ahm, you think the researchers of abiogenesis aren't doing this? You think they shouldn't look at anything else while they do?

 

[1213]

You're not interested to know how life arose on earth over 3.5 bn years ago? You have no curiosity about how every one of your ancestors, across that enormous period of time, survived long enough to reproduce and so evolve, which is the only reason you're here and human?

I am interested to know. But those fantasy stories are not same as real knowledge. it would be interesting to know, if some one could really demonstrate life to begin from non-living material without any intervening into it.

 

[blü 2]

I am interested to know. But those fantasy stories are not same as real knowledge. it would be interesting to know, if some one could really demonstrate life to begin from non-living material without any intervening into it.

Please explain to me why, exactly, you think abiogenesis research is a "fantasy story".

What test do you say abiogenesis research fails that distinguishes it from any other biological research?

 

[Heyo]

I am interested to know. But those fantasy stories are not same as real knowledge. it would be interesting to know, if some one could really demonstrate life to begin from non-living material without any intervening into it.

There are multiple steps in abiogenesis we don't know and there are multiple teams working at different ends of the question. Miller/Urey was on the basic chemical end. Craig Venter's experiment was on the DNA/biology end.
It will take some time until we learn all the steps and can demonstrate life happening in one sequence without intervention.

 

[1213]

Please explain to me why, exactly, you think abiogenesis research is a "fantasy story".
...

Research itself is not a story. The fantasy story is the part that has no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Research itself is not a story. The fantasy story is the part that has no evidence.

Why do you think that there is no evidence?

There is far more than you realize. But you almost certainly do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Research itself is not a story. The fantasy story is the part that has no evidence.

On the contrary, every living thing and its similarities ─ in especial, its genetic similarities ─ to every other living thing, point backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning, which need only be a single beginning. So the question is how such a single beginning could occur in nature, given the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No fantasy is involved.

 

[Earthtank]

Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.

Not sure what's worse believing in this or Jesus. I guess everyone chooses their own "fairy" to "trust"

 

[blü 2]

Not sure what's worse believing in this or Jesus. I guess everyone chooses their own "fairy" to "trust"

See my reply to 1213 in post #49 above.

The alternative to a scientific explanation for the first self-reproducing cell is magic. If you prefer to play with the fairies, that's a matter for you.

 

[1213]

...to every other living thing, point backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning, which need only be a single beginning. So the question is how such a single beginning could occur in nature, given the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No fantasy is involved.

That “every other living thing, point backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning” is fantasy.

Every building also points backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning. Yet it does not mean that all buildings evolved without creator on their own. So, I think your logic is not reasonable and it doesn’t really mean anything.

 

[blü 2]

That “every other living thing, point backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning” is fantasy.

Every building also points backwards down the chain of evolution and converge to an implicit beginning. Yet it does not mean that all buildings evolved without creator on their own. So, I think your logic is not reasonable and it doesn’t really mean anything.

Natural things include not only gasses and rocks and crystals and snowflakes and sand, but biological things like viruses, amoeba, the kingdom of vegetation, the amazing slime molds, all the critters, including us, and all the rest of biology.

They all trace back to a natural beginning. Houses are something humans do, so they all trace back to a human beginning. I think your argument qualifies as a category error.