New theory on how life began

[untermensche]

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

Are you sure you know what a hypothesis is?

We can't build a time machine to actually observe abiogenesis events, but the work cited in the original post involved actual evidence.

Is it your argument that unless we go back in time and actually observe the origin of life that therefore any conclusions about the origin of life is automatically a hypothesis?

This is nowhere near the origin of life.

It is soup.

And soup has existed on the earth for billions of years yet it seems life only began once, at least there is no evidence it began twice or more.

 

[untermensche]

You need something self replicating hearty enough to survive and able to "evolve". And it has to lead to DNA if it an explanation of life on this planet.

Of course a hypothesis is that time and chance events like lightning strikes are the cause. Most likely there were no aliens involved.

But saying the magic phrase "covalent bonding" doesn't explain anything.

Certainly not an explanation that would convince anyone who rejects chemistry.

Use of an absurd strawman to bow out when over one's head.

Good idea.

 

[Deepak]

Are you sure you know what a hypothesis is?

We can't build a time machine to actually observe abiogenesis events, but the work cited in the original post involved actual evidence.

Is it your argument that unless we go back in time and actually observe the origin of life that therefore any conclusions about the origin of life is automatically a hypothesis?

This is nowhere near the origin of life.

It is soup.

And soup has existed on the earth for billions of years yet it seems life only began once, at least there is no evidence it began twice or more.

Show me the evidence of the eukaryotic revolution. There's no evidence they evolved from prokaryotes - so clearly the eukaryotes were magiced in my Jesus.

The only thing preventing small molecules, given time and energy, to produce polymers, given time and energy, to produce biopolymers, given time and energy, to produce complex biopolymers is a lack of imagination. The processes pretty well mirror genetic evolution.

 

[untermensche]

This is nowhere near the origin of life.

It is soup.

And soup has existed on the earth for billions of years yet it seems life only began once, at least there is no evidence it began twice or more.

Show me the evidence of the eukaryotic revolution. There's no evidence they evolved from prokaryotes - so clearly the eukaryotes were magiced in my Jesus.

The only thing preventing small molecules, given time and energy, to produce polymers, given time and energy, to produce biopolymers, given time and energy, to produce complex biopolymers is a lack of imagination. The processes pretty well mirror genetic evolution.

Yet it only happened once.

As far as we know.

So easy, yet so hard.

 

[none]

Show me the evidence of the eukaryotic revolution. There's no evidence they evolved from prokaryotes - so clearly the eukaryotes were magiced in my Jesus.

The only thing preventing small molecules, given time and energy, to produce polymers, given time and energy, to produce biopolymers, given time and energy, to produce complex biopolymers is a lack of imagination. The processes pretty well mirror genetic evolution.

Yet it only happened once.

As far as we know.

So easy, yet so hard.

@untermensche, ^^not sure how your admission counters the point that you are now agreeing with

 

[untermensche]

Yet it only happened once.

As far as we know.

So easy, yet so hard.

@untermensche, ^^not sure how your admission counters the point that you are now agreeing with

Once in five billion years.

Doesn't sound like something likely to happen, as is contended.

 

[none]

@untermensche, ^^not sure how your admission counters the point that you are now agreeing with

Once in five billion years.

Doesn't sound like something likely to happen, as is contended.

OP said inevitable not 'likely'
word game player you!

 

[bilby]

If WTC building 7 could 'easily' be demolished by the effects of the twin towers coming down, why did it only collapse once??

 

[untermensche]

Once in five billion years.

Doesn't sound like something likely to happen, as is contended.

OP said inevitable not 'likely'
word game player you!

To say inevitable means every step is understood.

Nothing has been explained in terms of the emergence of something like RNA.

 

[untermensche]

If WTC building 7 could 'easily' be demolished by the effects of the twin towers coming down, why did it only collapse once??

The development of the cell is akin to rolling down a hill?

And you think this more than bare hypothesis?

 

[none]

OP said inevitable not 'likely'
word game player you!

To say inevitable means every step is understood.

Nothing has been explained in terms of the emergence of something like RNA.

every step of what?

 

[fromderinside]

And you think this more than bare hypothesis?

When surrounded by an understanding of the surrounding science that lead to this proclamation. Yes.

 

[untermensche]

To say inevitable means every step is understood.

Nothing has been explained in terms of the emergence of something like RNA.

I get off better here then to decipher your intelligible garbage@
every step of what?

You offer no incentive.

You have some faith.

You believe that because molecules move about and change in response to changing environments that life is inevitable.

You connect A to Z with NOTHING in between.

You are a waste of time until proven otherwise.

 

[none]

I get off better here then to decipher your intelligible garbage@
every step of what?

You offer no incentive.

You have some faith.

You believe that because molecules move about and change in response to changing environments that life is inevitable.

You connect A to Z with NOTHING in between.

You are a waste of time until proven otherwise.

you sad gibberish is noted

 

[untermensche]

And you think this more than bare hypothesis?

When surrounded by an understanding of the surrounding science that lead to this proclamation. Yes.

La de da.

When in heaven I will have wings.

- - - Updated - - -

you sad gibberish is noted

Your complete lack to form any coherent point or argument is the salient feature here.

 

[none]

When surrounded by an understanding of the surrounding science that lead to this proclamation. Yes.

La de da.

When in heaven I will have wings.

- - - Updated - - -

you sad gibberish is noted

Your complete lack to form any coherent point or argument is the salient feature here.

I asked you what you were talking about.....funny

 

[untermensche]

I asked you what you were talking about.....funny

You are ashamed but what you wrote was.

I get off better here then to decipher your intelligible garbage@

But so what.

I thought it was clear.

To say life is inevitable you have to go from some ratio of elements and molecules under certain conditions and have something like RNA emerge.

You can't just say: "Guess what if I mix this up for a long time RNA will inevitably emerge".

"Trust me."

 

[none]

To say inevitable means every step is understood.

Nothing has been explained in terms of the emergence of something like RNA.

every step of what?

^^^THIS, I ASKED THIS^^^

 

[untermensche]

To say life is inevitable you have to go from some ratio of elements and molecules under certain conditions and have something like RNA emerge.

Every step of this.

 

[Deepak]

@untermensche, ^^not sure how your admission counters the point that you are now agreeing with

Once in five billion years.

Doesn't sound like something likely to happen, as is contended.

Say's who? Where's your evidence for that?

What we do know is that the conditions on a primordial Earth and the Earth we now live on are quite different. Indeed - the Miller-Urey experiment showed that such a set of conditions are conducive to building amino acid chains. Now what happens after that is a bit of a mystery but I'm pretty certain that the same evolutionary model describes conditions then as they do now - it could well be that it did happen multiple times but only one line survived due to competition, or alternately that first line was sufficiently successful enough that it was able to continue reproducing in the largely anaerobic atmosphere of the early Earth leading up to the Oxygen Holocaust.

Once that happens two key things change. (A) the chemistry of the conditions is irrevocably changed, and (2) the Earth is full of basic life. Now we still observe polymerization happening, but the conditions are less conducive to forming net-new biopolymers that would eventually become the building blocks of new life - and more importantly there are organisms that are able to consume any biopolymers and proto-biopolymers just as we have have observed bacteria who eat simpler polymers like Nylon and polyethylene.

To say we don't have enough specificity of every step is to make the exact argument the creationists do about the missing link, or to make the claim that I couldn't possibly exist unless I'm able to produce the skeleton of my great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother.