Same answers for abiogenesis as for evolution. I do not need to repeat. Science is science. Intelligent Design is trash not science.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Discussing the Origin of Life
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Same answers for abiogenesis as for evolution. I do not need to repeat. Science is science. Intelligent Design is trash not science.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
makes sense that consciousness could not emerge from something not capable of such a feat....and a tree is known by its fruit, no matter how withered or fraught with rot.
Why does this make sense, and what is this 'feat' you speak of?
We don't understand consciousness or what processes underlie it. That doesn't make it reasonable to ascribe it to magic.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
like produces like, even if the fruit can't "see" the tree it has fallen from
Not sure why you would think that. Life is a chemical process (actually, a collection of chemical processes) and chemistry is common in the universe.
The point is that matter is NOT inert!
Matter interacts with other matter, sometimes in dramatic ways. Different compounds will react differently, which leads to a wide range of possible interactions. Life is one collection of potential interactions of matter.
So your 'retarded lump' is strawman.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
not my euphamism......just kicking the idea round some
the "life is a chemical process" while correct, is incomplete, since there is an intangible "ghost in the machine" effect which has kept these crazy spiritualistic traditions alive for thousands of years....without which they would have been kicked to the curb as worse than useless long ago.
they aren't only 'kept alive' to control the masses.
Except that there is no 'ghost in the machine effect'. That is part of the point. At no point is there anything other than chemistry involved. No elan vitale has ever been found nor has any evidence of such.
Life *is* a chemical process.
The traditions are those of people who did not know the science and could not know it given their technology. It was a best guess that turned out to be wrong.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
well, that could very well be your considered and studied opinion, yet it is an unproven claim that there is "NO"ghost in the machine........or do you stand against all those scientists who say there is enough evidence for them to say there must be something of that nature to explain the phenomenology?
Astrophile
Active Member
The simple answer is that all the chemical processes that occur in living things can be duplicated abiotically in laboratories, and that many organic, or pre-biotic, compounds, including amino acids and some of the building blocks of DNA and RNA have been produced, again abiotically, in interstellar molecular clouds and the parent bodies of meteorites. This doesn't prove that life can come from non-life, but it appears to point in that direction.
The difference between chemical and biochemical reactions and transmutations of elements is that the energies associated with chemical and biochemical reactions (such as synthesising amino acids or DNA) are much less than the energies associated with nuclear transmutations (like transforming lead into gold or vice versa), so that they can occur at planetary and interstellar temperatures, whereas nuclear transmutations require the temperatures of stellar interiors.
You can get lead from uranium or thorium, if you wait long enough. Also, asymptotic giant branch stars can transform gold into lead by neutron capture reactions.
After studying biochemistry and the history of the 'elan vitale' idea, the complete *lack* of evidence for a 'ghost' is quite sufficient for me to say it is unnecessary to understand what life is.
Which scientists say that there is? And what do they use as evidence of such? For example, specifically which processes of living things cannot be explained by chemistry and physics?
Searching for the Chemistry of Life: Possible New Way to Create DNA Base Pairs Discovered
Searching for the Chemistry of Life: Possible New Way to Create DNA Base Pairs Discovered
TOPICS:BiochemistryDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronDNA
By DEUTSCHES ELEKTRONEN-SYNCHROTRON DESY OCTOBER 29, 2020
Artist’s impression of young Earth. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
In the search for the chemical origins of life, researchers have found a possible alternative path for the emergence of the characteristic DNA pattern: According to the experiments, the characteristic DNA base pairs can form by dry heating, without water or other solvents. The team led by Ivan Halasz from the Ruđer Bošković Institute and Ernest Meštrović from the pharmaceutical company Xellia presents its observations from DESY’s X-ray source PETRA III in the journal Chemical Communications.
“One of the most intriguing questions in the search for the origin of life is how the chemical selection occurred and how the first biomolecules formed,” says Tomislav Stolar from the Ruđer Bošković Institute in Zagreb, the first author on the paper. While living cells control the production of biomolecules with their sophisticated machinery, the first molecular and supramolecular building blocks of life were likely created by pure chemistry and without enzyme catalysis. For their study, the scientists investigated the formation of nucleobase pairs that act as molecular recognition units in the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).
Searching for the Chemistry of Life: Possible New Way to Create DNA Base Pairs Discovered
TOPICS:BiochemistryDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronDNA
By DEUTSCHES ELEKTRONEN-SYNCHROTRON DESY OCTOBER 29, 2020
Artist’s impression of young Earth. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
In the search for the chemical origins of life, researchers have found a possible alternative path for the emergence of the characteristic DNA pattern: According to the experiments, the characteristic DNA base pairs can form by dry heating, without water or other solvents. The team led by Ivan Halasz from the Ruđer Bošković Institute and Ernest Meštrović from the pharmaceutical company Xellia presents its observations from DESY’s X-ray source PETRA III in the journal Chemical Communications.
“One of the most intriguing questions in the search for the origin of life is how the chemical selection occurred and how the first biomolecules formed,” says Tomislav Stolar from the Ruđer Bošković Institute in Zagreb, the first author on the paper. While living cells control the production of biomolecules with their sophisticated machinery, the first molecular and supramolecular building blocks of life were likely created by pure chemistry and without enzyme catalysis. For their study, the scientists investigated the formation of nucleobase pairs that act as molecular recognition units in the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).
Audie
Veteran Member
Like produces EXACTLY like?
ONLY like? Nothing else?
How does this "production" happen?
Only books can produce books or could I
produce sonething so unlike myself?
Audie
Veteran Member
Qs that will not get answers.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
typically, that seems to be the rule, fish produce fish
evolution shows us a huge picture of adaptation, endless permutations, yet not one example of a change in "kind" to be found anywhere....which seems significant.
Audie
Veteran Member
You did not actually answer anything I asked. Could you try?
Significant may be your failure to do so.
Significant for sure is your reference to "kind", a fuzzy bible-term
with zero meaning in biology.
Of similar significance is your rather moldy bit of strawman
anout a change in "kind". Nobody knows what you even mean.
Plz define kind and give an example of a what you
would comsider a change of kind.
Oddly, you are close to an understanding when you refer to
"endless" change.
The fossil record does in fact show a great long succession of
minor changes which take one from, say, fish thro amphibian to
reptiles and then birds and mammals.
There certainly is significance there, for all to see.
Now, could you address my questions? Try.
Audie
Veteran Member
You have the most dreadful habit of asking things that cannot be answered.
Astrophile
Active Member
Are sharks, herring, coelacanths and lungfish descended from a common ancestor?
Perhaps. It depends what you mean by 'kind'. For example, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, ardipithecines, australopithecines and humans all belong to the ape kind; we are descended from a common ancestor that lived 10-12 million years ago, much more recently than the common ancestor of sharks and herrings.
Your neglecting the detailed fossil record, for example the origin of mammals, sea mammals from land animals, and the origin of birds from dinosaurs.