My Abiogenesis Challenge

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which philosophy would that be?

He's come across a way of describing 'the rise of complexity in nature' in terms of seven 'cosmic epochs'. It's based on a 15-year-old popular science book by Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, "Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature". Harvard Uni have a web site based on it.

It's not a philosophy, just an educational perspective.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What do YOU think would happen with a single cell entity which was introduced to a pond?

Ponds are teeming with single cell organisms.

Understand that there could be no evolutionary pressures without predators and the exhaustion of food wouldn't be realized until it was gone.

Wrong. Understand that 'evolutionary pressures' are anything that reduces reproductive fitness. The exhaustion of food itself would be an evolutionary (selective) pressure.

Moreover, what would the cell eat anyway? I submit that there is NO scenario by which an original progenitor can exist in any environment.

It's a mistake to use your own lack of knowledge and imagination as a guide to what is or isn't possible.

A moment of thought should tell you that for an organic replicator to develop in some environment, a rich supply of organic compounds would have to be present. Those compounds would be what such proto-life would use as raw materials.

However, Darwin's romantic idea of a 'warm pond' is not thought to be a likely candidate for the origin for life. The leading hypothesis is that it developed in the fissures and channels of oceanic hydrothermal vents, or 'smokers', where there is a continuous flow of organic compounds and minerals, and a range of energy gradients, both heat and chemical.

 

[Larniavc]

Groovy.

Then it's just a figment of your imagination?

No.

Your imagination.

 

[quatona]

He's come across a way of describing 'the rise of complexity in nature' in terms of seven 'cosmic epochs'. It's based on a 15-year-old popular science book by Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, "Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature". Harvard Uni have a web site based on it.

It's not a philosophy, just an educational perspective.

And why does AV think it´s my position and wants me to explain adn justify it to him?

 

[Larniavc]

but then you didn't tell me which compartment abiogenesis occurred.

Abiogenesis is under the discipline of biochemistry.

That is not the theory of evolution. What part of that does not answer your challenge?

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis is under the discipline of biochemistry.

So?

I don't care if it falls under coin collecting.

That is not the theory of evolution.

What isn't? abiogenesis, or this biochemistry you keep wanting to add to this thread?

What part of that does not answer your challenge?

None of it.

I'm only looking for a two-word answer -- (or just one, if two is too hard):

1. particulate
2. galactic
3. stellar
4. planetary
5. chemical
6. biological
7. cultural

And if one word is too hard, just give me the corresponding number.

There, I did your work for you.

You're welcome!

NOW will you answer the challenge?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And why does AV think it´s my position and wants me to explain adn justify it to him?

Charitably, it's probably just him being provocative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Charitably, it's probably just him being provocative.

M ... moi!?

 

[florida2]

So?

I don't care if it falls under coin collecting.What isn't? abiogenesis, or this biochemistry you keep wanting to add to this thread?None of it.

I'm only looking for a two-word answer -- (or just one, if two is too hard):

1. particulate
2. galactic
3. stellar
4. planetary
5. chemical
6. biological
7. cultural

And if one word is too hard, just give me the corresponding number.

There, I did your work for you.

You're welcome!

NOW will you answer the challenge?

Out of interest, where is that list from?

 

[Larniavc]

So?

I don't care if it falls under coin collecting.What isn't? abiogenesis, or this biochemistry you keep wanting to add to this thread?None of it.

I'm only looking for a two-word answer -- (or just one, if two is too hard):

1. particulate
2. galactic
3. stellar
4. planetary
5. chemical
6. biological
7. cultural

And if one word is too hard, just give me the corresponding number.

There, I did your work for you.

You're welcome!

NOW will you answer the challenge?

The best fit would be biological or chemical.

Fun fact: biochemistry is a portmanteau of both words.

 

[AV1611VET]

Out of interest, where is that list from?

42

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

What part of cosmic evolution is abiogenesis under?

Brother, if we classify a fly's flight under flywingflapping or insectairborning, it doesn;t really matter.

What matters, who things really happen. Contents, fact, reality, not terminology and classifications.

 

[AV1611VET]

Contents, fact, reality, not terminology and classifications.

Tell that to Carl Linnaeus and his modern-day followers.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Tell that to Carl Linnaeus and his modern-day followers.

Where to find them? And I don't want to tell anybody anything. If I know something, I know it. If I don't know something, I don't know it. Enough for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where to find them?

They're easy to find.

Just ask them if you're a Homo.*

If they say YES, you found them.

If they say NO, he's probably okay.

* Be sure and stress a capital aitch (H). You wouldn't want them to get the wrong idea.

 

[Kylie]

Show me from a Harvard site where the Bible mentions it.

Show me from a NASA site where the Bible mentions it.

Show me from Wikipedia where the Bible mentions it.

I think I've done my part in educating you guys about your own philosophy.

Now it's your turn to answer this challenge or gracefully bow out.

Ah, so you admit that one particular thing is not always related to another thing?

So why in the world do you insist on saying that biological evolution is a part of cosmological evolution when you have been repeatedly told it is not?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why in the world do you insist on saying that biological evolution is a part of cosmological evolution when you have been repeatedly told it is not?

Because biological evolution is listed as #6 on the list of cosmological evolution (see Post 66).

 

[Kylie]

Because biological evolution is listed as #6 on the list of cosmological evolution (see Post 66).

Methinks you need to have a read of Post #61 again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Methinks you need to have a read of Post #61 again.

What about it?

I even rated it INFORMATIVE.

 

[Kylie]

What about it?

I even rated it INFORMATIVE.

Then I have to wonder why you are acting like these "7 stages of evolution" are written in stone.

As I and many others have said, biological evolution and cosmological evolution are very different things.

Really, the only connection that can be made is that biological evolution takes place within the cosmos. But, as I have also said, so does everything else.