What do you think about abiogenesis?

[tas8831]

There's a mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code.

Numerology went out with the invention of the wheel.

Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase.

NO WAYYYYYY!!!!

You mean that because there are only so many 3-base combinations of nucleobases that if we look the first nucleobase we will also find other codons starting with the SAME nucleobase????

INCREDIBLE!

 

[tas8831]

the dust took a breath and declared...... I AM!!!!

or

a Spirit did so before creating the dust

Cool fairy tales!

 

[tas8831]

That's a lot of cut and paste. One has to wonder how much of it you actually understand.

I just now googled the title of one of the papers he keeps referring to and shock and awe - I see that our Sal has been dutifully spam-pasting that post all over the intertubes for a while. I find the whole enterprise pretty shady - it seems that there is a 'cabal' of folks from Serbian institutes and obscure Moscow-based folks that are the only folks working on this stuff. There is a HUGE amount of self-references (a regular circular back-patting squad - they all cite each others papers and not much else). While it is not uncommon for investigators to cite their own work on a topic, or the work of collaborators, it IS uncommon for nearly all of your citations to be to your own 'lab' mates work and their Moscow collaborator.
This is David Abel-level self-referencing.

 

[ecco]

On the other hands...

NASA's Alternative Definition of Life - President's Dream Colloquium - Simon Fraser UniversityWhat is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life

Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky."

Life - Wikipedia
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.

There are over 100 definitions for 'life' and all are wrong
Nasa, for instance, has described life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".

But Nasa's is just one of many attempts to pin down all life with a simple description. In fact, over 100 definitions of life have been proposed, with most focusing on a handful of key attributes such as replication and metabolism.

To make matters worse, different kinds of scientist have different ideas about what is truly necessary to define something as alive. While a chemist might say life boils down to certain molecules, a physicist might want to discuss thermodynamics.

For his part, Forterre thinks viruses are alive, but he acknowledges that the decision really depends on where you decide to place the cut-off point.

​

Etc, Etc, ad nauseam

​

 

[ecco]

The only alternative is that biological life has existed eternally.

If life existed before the big bang, how did it get into our universe?

 

[ecco]

I would certainly agree it seems likely that various building blocks came along at widely spaced intervals. But as for the idea that there are still processes going on today that are producing complex pre-biotic chemistry under our noses, I don't see how that can be the case, because we would be able to detect it. It would great, in fact, as it would make the study of abiogenesis far easier. But you don't read any reports of discoveries like this.

Since we don't know the actual steps that take place in the "creation of life", how would we know what to look for?

However, consider, are protein chains are forming currently? Are crystals growing now? Are atoms combining to form molecules in deep-sea vents today? Are peptides forming now? Aminonitriles?

 

[PureX]

Again, you're pre-supposing a why when there needn't be one. We can simply be the result of natural processes without any of what we would consider to be intent.

But existence, itself, is an expression of 'intent'. And not only of intent, but of 'designed intent'. The way existence exists is the result of the ways energy can and cannot express itself. The foundation is not chaos. It is the limitation within the chaos. Those limitations are the designing factors of existence as we know it. Energy is the 'intent' that something happen, and the limitations within that expressed intent is the design factor that determined what did, and is still, happening. Existence as we know it is the preordained result. And it wants to know why.

Asking "why" is pointless, unless you can derive an objective, quantifiable measure from which to derive an answer. Otherwise, the Universe need not have a "why", and nobody is owed one.

Being unable to answer the question does not make asking the question "pointless".

 

[ecco]

And even if we understood the mechanics (how), that still does not explain the motive (why).

Why does there need to be a why?

Because we can ask, and because it matters to us.

Just because one can philosically ask WHY, doesn't mean there is a why.

So let me rephrase my question:
Why do you need to have a why for the existence of life?

 

[PureX]

Just because one can philosically ask WHY, doesn't mean there is a why.

So let me rephrase my question:
Why do you need to have a why for the existence of life?

It is my 'nature'. I have been 'designed' by the mechanisms of existence to seek such information.

 

[ecco]

With just the forces known to current science, I hold complex life to be a longshot of the greatest proportion.

A greater proportion than your existence?

You are the result of one specific sperm impregnating one specific egg. One out of 100 million. You are the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 longshot.

Your father was the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 longshot.

Therefore, you are the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 ^ 100,000,000 longshot. That's a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000 longshot. (10 quadrillion)

You have 2 grandfathers. You have 8 great grandfathers.

Do you see where this is going? Your life is a longshot of the greatest proportion.

 

[ecco]

I just now googled the title of one of the papers he keeps referring to and shock and awe - I see that our Sal has been dutifully spam-pasting that post all over the intertubes for a while. I find the whole enterprise pretty shady - it seems that there is a 'cabal' of folks from Serbian institutes and obscure Moscow-based folks that are the only folks working on this stuff. There is a HUGE amount of self-references (a regular circular back-patting squad - they all cite each others papers and not much else). While it is not uncommon for investigators to cite their own work on a topic, or the work of collaborators, it IS uncommon for nearly all of your citations to be to your own 'lab' mates work and their Moscow collaborator.
This is David Abel-level self-referencing.

Now, now. I'm quite sure that Salvadore realizes all this and has perfectly good explanations. I'm quite sure that Salvadore isn't in woo. I'm quite sure that ...


Nah! I can only fib so much.

Thanks for the research.

 

[ecco]

Just because one can philosically ask WHY, doesn't mean there is a why.

So let me rephrase my question:
Why do you need to have a why for the existence of life?

It is my 'nature'. I have been 'designed' by the mechanisms of existence to seek such information.

Please read carefully. I didn't ask why you wanted to seek such information. I asked why you needed to have a why for the existence of life.

You see a rock. Before you would wonder why someone would put a dollar under the rock you have had to convince yourself that there is a dollar under the rock.

Why did you convince yourself that there is a dollar under the rock?
Why did you convince yourself that there is a why to life on earth.?

 

[PureX]

Please read carefully. I didn't ask why you wanted to seek such information. I asked why you needed to have a why for the existence of life.

Please read my response carefully: BECAUSE I AM HUMAN. I have been designed by the mechanisms of existence to seek an answer to the question of existential purpose.

You see a rock. Before you would wonder why someone would put a dollar under the rock you have had to convince yourself that there is a dollar under the rock.

Why did you convince yourself that there is a dollar under the rock?
Why did you convince yourself that there is a why to life on earth.?

Existence, itself, is an expression of 'intent'. And not only of intent, but of 'designed intent'.

The way existence exists is the result of the ways that energy can and cannot express itself. The foundation is not chaos. It is the limitation within the chaos. Those limitations are the designing factors of existence as we know it. Energy is the 'intent' that something happen, and the limitations within that expressed intent (energy) is the design factor that determined what has, and is, happening. Existence as we know it is the result. And it (we) want to know why.

 

[Revoltingest]

Abiogenesis is most of all fascinating.
We don't know the initial conditions, the chemical reactions, or the
frequency on Earth or other planets/moons. It's a wide open field, with
diverse & interesting facets to consider, explore, & experiment upon.
Last, but least is the drama....fundies & scientism fans fighting over it.

 

[George-ananda]

A greater proportion than your existence?

You are the result of one specific sperm impregnating one specific egg. One out of 100 million. You are the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 longshot.

Your father was the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 longshot.

Therefore, you are the result of a 1 in 100,000,000 ^ 100,000,000 longshot. That's a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000 longshot. (10 quadrillion)

You have 2 grandfathers. You have 8 great grandfathers.

Do you see where this is going? Your life is a longshot of the greatest proportion.

I’m seeing the example of my uniqueness as something different than the rise of complex life with all its mind boggling systems through only the unconscious forces known to science.

 

[Salvador]

If life existed before the big bang, who did it get into our universe?

I believe you meant how did it get into our universe.

 

[ChristineM]

If it occured once, could it occur twice, and if it could, are there natural or universal laws involved?

I have heard hypothesis that it may have occured many times. W
Either only once successfully or among all the varied life on earth there are some species derived form s different start point.

Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth

Did Life Start More Than Once on Earth? - Astrobiology

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/80/10/2981.full.pdf

 

[Brickjectivity]

What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?

The Selfish Gene chapter 2 provides the most popular idea about how biogenesis could have happened. Its why Dawkins is so famous. I cannot explain the entire chapter, but its very reasonable. This doesn't mean he's correct, but the principles he cites are obvious in nature. It goes something like this: There are nonliving things in nature which replicate, and its possible if they are good at replicating that they could have minor errors in replication leading to a more complex replication process. His explanation is much more clear, but mine is much shorter.

 

[ecco]

Please read my response carefully: BECAUSE I AM HUMAN. I have been designed by the mechanisms of existence to seek an answer to the question of existential purpose.

I am human. I have no need to seek an answer to the question of existential purpose. I don't even believe there is such a thing as an existential purpose.

The question I have asked several times, in several different ways is: Why do you think the is such a thing as an existential purpose?

Existence, itself, is an expression of 'intent'. And not only of intent, but of 'designed intent'.

OK, So you are a Creationist and you have a need to find out why the Creator made His creation.

Good luck with that.

 

[ecco]

I’m seeing the example of my uniqueness as something different than the rise of complex life with all its mind boggling systems through only the unconscious forces known to science.

I wasn't talking about uniqueness. I was addressing your improbable odds objection...

With just the forces known to current science, I hold complex life to be a longshot of the greatest proportion.

Would you care to address my comments in relation to your problem with long odds?