Kylie's Pool Challenge

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the conjectured chemical factory in which the leap to protocells took place : thermal vents, fissures and pools are still extant, distributed across the world and geological history. Yet none of them have evidence of protocells , antecedents to them or postcedents and therefore intermediates to present life.

Citation?

 

[SelfSim]

Either the Leap to a protocell was likely in quantum statistics , in which they would still be in manufacture, or if that step was unlikely then all volcanic vents must have the immediate precursors to give any chance that an unlikely critical step happened. Neither is true. It is called critical thinking.

If you were thinking critically, you wouldn't be asserting the non-truth of what are, demonstrably, the subjects of a set of perfectly testable hypotheses.

Your problem is you fail to use the appropriate terms to express your concerns. You are conflating the testable concept of 'a protocell' with 'a modern day template based, highly evolved, self-replicating cell'. The evolution of the common genetic code is a major open question in there in the field of Evolutionary Bio-Chemistry/Biology.

You look through rose tinted glasses at what evidence is there, because of apriori faith it happened that way.

Not me .. others can speak for themselves on that .. (Not that you'll listen to it, of course). I, for one, have no vested interests in Abiogenesis hypotheses being true .. and I have campaigned extensively elsewhere from where, (I think?), is your main, (but very poorly expressed), area of concern.

I do feel directed searches for life elsewhere (ie: other than Earth), are motivated by much belief and faith in the existence of life elsewhere, and I have campained extensively elsewhere (to a much higher objective standard than here at CFs) .. so I an much more in touch with what you're trying to express than you recognise.

None of this undermines the positions I've taken in this 'debate' with you. You are not approaching the discussion objectively .. (whether you like people telling you that, or not).

I’m not against the idea. I’m against the promotion of it to status beyond conjecture.

Too late .. its already an objectively testable hypothesis (and has been for years ..).

Thank you for confirming one of my arguments. The forensic evidence of life that appeared in such as Cochabamba statue and so called Eucharist miracles is indeed forensic evidence of abiogenesis. Others attacked me for saying so. If creation happened there is no reason to constrain it to be a one time event.

For the umpteeth time, you have provided zero 'ammo' of substance for the purposes of, (for eg), my quest to debate the matter with others who track mainstream developments in the field of Astrobiology/Abiogenesis way closer than I do. Those debates have pushed me to learn and achieve a much more detailed understanding of the thinking and objective evidence in the very complex field of Evolutionary bio-chemistry

Your miraculous conclusions relating to your so-called evidence of spontaneous, modern-day abiogenesis, are devoid of scientific objectivity, to the extreme. Your use of conflated concepts draws inferences of gross ignorance in the minds of other pro-Astrobiology interested mindsets, which results in your arguments appearing as being no less than totally ludicrous and completely faith-based, in the end-game.
This of course, does not help progress the gathering of practically useful, objective knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You too are out. Why is it atheists are incapable of civil discussion?

The many references I quote prove I am indeed scientifically literate. Perhaps too much so. I have travelled so far through it I see the cracks in the edifice of scientific realism.

Umm . . . no. You keep demonstrating illiteracy whenever you try to claim "no proof". This is very very basic in the sciences. There is no proof. There is only scientific evidence in the sciences. And scientific evidence is very well defined and there is undeniable evidence for abiogenesis.

I am sure that you have been asked for evidence hundreds of times. It would only take a few minutes to cover the basics of the concept of scientific evidence. Why do you refuse to go over the most basic of concepts of the sciences? If one does not understand the concept of scientific evidence one cannot properly claim to be scientifically literate.

 

[Kylie]

There is not. There is plausibility evidence for bits of a conjectured process , but there is nothing at all for the critical step. The step that leapt from random chance meeting of non living chemicals to the hideous complexity of self replicating, self evolving cells. So far, all there is is conjecture.

Indeed the opposite is so far true: the conjectured chemical factory in which the leap to protocells took place : thermal vents, fissures and pools are still extant, distributed across the world and geological history. Yet none of them have evidence of protocells , antecedents to them or postcedents and therefore intermediates to present life.

Either the Leap to a protocell was likely in quantum statistics , in which they would still be in manufacture, or if that step was unlikely then all volcanic vents must have the immediate precursors to give any chance that an unlikely critical step happened. Neither is true. It is called critical thinking.

You look through rose tinted glasses at what evidence is there, because of apriori faith it happened that way.

I’m not against the idea. I’m against the promotion of it to status beyond conjecture.

Thank you for confirming one of my arguments. The forensic evidence of life that appeared in such as Cochabamba statue and so called Eucharist miracles is indeed forensic evidence of abiogenesis. Others attacked me for saying so. If creation happened there is no reason to constrain it to be a one time event.

Ah yes. The good old, "If you can't show me every single intermediate stage, I'm not going to accept it" argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes. The good old, "If you can't show me every single intermediate stage, I'm not going to accept it" argument.

Concatenate or confess it ain't.

 

[Kylie]

Concatenate or confess it ain't.

You first.

Tell me the name of every single one of your ancestors going back to Adam. Or are you not Human?

 

[Mountainmike]

I am conflating nothing.
I am critiquing what those who hold the belief of abiogenesis from selfsim soup say about it. I already pointed out that I followed this from the first. It was 50 years ago!

it’s not my argument, I critique others: Blame them.

The PURE CONJECTURE in much of that research argues that the precursors to modern cells were protocells. Yet nowhere in the many places they claim such things formed and lived, is any evidence that either protocells or their antecedents actually exist , or ever existed.

Any test of a protocell structure ( or a component of such) is a plausibility test of conjecture. Since there is no evidence that any particular design of protocell ( not that there is specific design ) formed part of the actual chain to life.

Anyway , it’s a pointless discussion with faith based adherents who look through rose tinted glasses and think it is all a done deal, when in reality it is little more than a guess.

For the present it is in the category” interesting idea.” Bravo if anyone solves it. I’m not convinced they will. There are also those who in the research who think the problem gets harder , not easier, the more they discover about it. I’m with them.

It is fascinating that you weigh conjecture as evidence, yet you dismiss actual forensic evidence as “lacking objectivity” ha ha! . How would you know, you have never seemingly looked at it! There are some 20 professors / forensic pathologists who disagree with you!
The differences is they tested the samples, you didn’t! So excuse me if I take their view not yours.

I can only comment that the actual evidence for life from soup doesn’t lack objectivity for the simple reason there isn’t any. No Actual evidence! There is interesting conjecture about how parts of it might have happened.

This is a masterpiece of Sagan’s folly. “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. That is the very of antithesis of science that raises a subjective bar against what it does not like, then drops the bar to things it does Like. Extraordinary is purely subjective.

It certainly is extraordinary that the simplest life Is a 10000 protein factory, that is presumed to have come from simpler things when there are no simpler things to be found!

On evidential terms demonstration of life from so called Eucharistic miracles wins hands down. No contest. Why? Because there is actual evidence!

If you were thinking critically, you wouldn't be asserting the non-truth of what are, demonstrably, the subjects of a set of perfectly testable hypotheses.

Your problem is you fail to use the appropriate terms to express your concerns. You are conflating the testable concept of 'a protocell' with 'a modern day template based, highly evolved, self-replicating cell'. The evolution of the common genetic code is a major open question in there in the field of Evolutionary Bio-Chemistry/Biology.

Not me .. others can speak for themselves on that .. (Not that you'll listen to it, of course). I, for one, have no vested interests in Abiogenesis hypotheses being true .. and I have campaigned extensively elsewhere from where, (I think?), is your main, (but very poorly expressed), area of concern.

I do feel directed searches for life elsewhere (ie: other than Earth), are motivated by much belief and faith in the existence of life elsewhere, and I have campained extensively elsewhere (to a much higher objective standard than here at CFs) .. so I an much more in touch with what you're trying to express than you recognise.

None of this undermines the positions I've taken in this 'debate' with you. You are not approaching the discussion objectively .. (whether you like people telling you that, or not).

Too late .. its already an objectively testable hypothesis (and has been for years ..).

For the umpteeth time, you have provided zero 'ammo' of substance for the purposes of, (for eg), my quest to debate the matter with others who track mainstream developments in the field of Astrobiology/Abiogenesis way closer than I do. Those debates have pushed me to learn and achieve a much more detailed understanding of the thinking and objective evidence in the very complex field of Evolutionary bio-chemistry

Your miraculous conclusions relating to your so-called evidence of spontaneous, modern-day abiogenesis, are devoid of scientific objectivity, to the extreme. Your use of conflated concepts draws inferences of gross ignorance in the minds of other pro-Astrobiology interested mindsets, which results in your arguments appearing as being no less than totally ludicrous and completely faith-based, in the end-game.
This of course, does not help progress the gathering of practically useful, objective knowledge.

 

[SelfSim]

It is fascinating that you weigh conjecture as evidence, yet you dismiss actual forensic evidence as “lacking objectivity” ha ha! . How would you know, you have never seemingly looked at it! There are some 20 professors / forensic pathologists who disagree with you!
The differences is they tested the samples, you didn’t! So excuse me if I take their view not yours.

Yet you have presented exactly *zip* documented, reviewed or evidence of how they went about it (and what assumptions were made).
Its just not good enough for you to simply wave yer arms around and say 'oh .. they used standard tests .. go look 'em up'. What sort of nonsense is that for debate purposes? Get real!

This is a masterpiece of Sagan’s folly. “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. That is the very of antithesis of science that raises a subjective bar against what it does not like, then drops the bar to things it does Like. Extraordinary is purely subjective.

No.
Just like @Kylie 's pool table is also bounded by the laws pertaining to objective reality, Sagan's statement was bounded by his being a scientist who accepted the reality of constraints of the known Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Geology and, (presumably), the principles of how evolution plays out in a given physical context.

Your assumption of miracles existing, (in physical reality), just ignores all of those constraining features .. So much for your claims of being a scientific thinker!

It certainly is extraordinary that the simplest life Is a 10000 protein factory, that is presumed to have come from simpler things when there are no simpler things to be found!

The bunkum irreducible complexity argument .. lol!
What's the connection with scientific thinking there?
(I'm obviously having diffficulty in bridging that yawning gap you've left for all of us to fill!)

On evidential terms demonstration of life from so called Eucharistic miracles wins hands down. No contest. Why? Because there is actual evidence!

Yet that 'evidence' cannot be derived from the known laws of Physics and Chemistry, (etc), because of your miraculous conclusion!
Unobjective, unscientific, belief-based are the only alternatives left to infer.
'Eucharistic miracle'??? Are you serious? Where can I find the objective definition of that to test out for myself then, eh? Are you serious in suggesting forensic analysis based on objective sciences?

 

[AV1611VET]

You first.

Sure ... I can't.

But God can.

Tell me the name of every single one of your ancestors going back to Adam.

No can do.

But God can.

Or are you not Human?

I am human.

 

[Kylie]

Sure ... I can't.

But God can.

No can do.

But God can.

Yeah, I won't hold my breath waiting for him to provide the list.

I am human.

Without the direct list of all ancestors of yours going back to Adam, I can not accept the claim that you are Human, just as you supported the idea that we can't accept evolution unless there is a complete list of all organisms going back to the formation of life.

 

[SelfSim]

Been thinking some more on this post:

It is fascinating that you weigh conjecture as evidence, yet you dismiss actual forensic evidence as “lacking objectivity” ha ha! . How would you know, you have never seemingly looked at it! There are some 20 professors / forensic pathologists who disagree with you!
The differences is they tested the samples, you didn’t! So excuse me if I take their view not yours.

Tested them for what(?) .. and under what set of assumed circumstances?

You consider your conclusion of 'Eucharistic miracle' as being evidenced by these tests .. but what you aren't revealing is that your going-in assumption is the truth of the existence of such a thing as 'Eucharistic miracles'.
All you've done is replicate that going-in (untestable) assumption and then apply your version of logic to that, which completely ignores objective physics and chemistry, and then returns the exact same truth value via logical inference. That might be the logic process .. but it is most definitely not the scientific method.
The best proper logic can only ever do, is return the same truth value of the going-in posit.
Science doesn't work that way. The last best tested results are already 'true' because they're already tested and if science references any truth in its conclusions, the truth value is never better than the last best tested theory/hypothesis (which continually accumulates by building upon prior test results).
Your going-in posit of the truth of the existence of 'Eucharistic miracles', or any 'miracles' whatsoever, is untestable because it ignores the truth of the existence of the constraining effects of the laws of physics/chemistry. All definitions in science are operational definitions (meaning they have all already been tested).
The forensic tests you mention, do not ignore the scientific truth value of the generic forensic testing process itself, because there's abundant already tested objective evidence underpinning their validity, when conducted under very specific conditions and contexts. This contradicts the method you've applied throughout this thread.
We don't know that your statue case tests have been done within the context of the very specific conditions and contexts forming the basis of the validity of forensic testing.

You believe they have been, but you won't produce the objectively stated conditions under which those tests were performed.
I don't care how many gurus you point to, because without those stated, documented conditions, we all have a choice: Believe what you believe ..and your gurus' various academic accreditions, or choose not believe at all, and seek objectively stated conditions.

Your argument is fatally flawed by many inconsistencies and a fundamental lack of scientific method/objectivity. These are the reasons for rejecting your revelations about your statue.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet that 'evidence' cannot be derived from the known laws of Physics and Chemistry

Its hard to discuss with somebody who hasn’t even clocked that science is a model. The laws are a model.

So the model has to follow the evidence.
The evidence doesn’t have to follow the model.

If the evidence doesn’t fit you need a new model.

You have the cart squarely in front the horse.

Mindgame.
A hydrogen molecule cannot self evolve and self replicate. Why? It isn’t complex enough. There is a minimum ( as yet unknown) complexity for anything that can. It needs some form of genome for starters. So irreducible complexity is a problem for abiogenesis. I didn’t say insurmountable , but it’s hard to see how it could ever be possible.

I find it hard to discuss with people who haven’t grasped a few basics about science and life.

 

[Mountainmike]

Citation?

Somebody quoted wiki on protocells at me .
I responded to that. It conjectured geothermal origins,
But it’s all over the web. Has been for decades, The twin themes of:
1/ protocells
2/ geothermal vents, ponds , cracks etc.

This is what self sim linked.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2019.2045

I point out that the first time I saw something similar in new scientist was 50 years ago.
Plus ca change.
A recent chemistry world article reviewing protocells by a researcher named Mann said they are
“sceptical that we can ever know”
“ just hoping for a way to connect dots”
You will notice that is exactly my summary of it.
Interesting conjecture, interesting science. Conjecture none the less.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/feat...gap-from-chemistry-to-biology/4014886.article

 

[Mr Laurier]

Sure ... I can't.

But God can.

Then get God to post the whole lineage.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sure ... I can't.

But God can.No can do.

But God can.I am human.

Don’t waste your time.
You are responding to a straw man.

They are likening - pure conjecture of a myriad of unknown intermediate steps in the pathway to the first cell. Neither the ability of those steps to replicate, nor evolve is known.

Then likening that To the idea that known human reproduction produces humans across many generations, but you do not know the names of those generations.

They use the straw man that you cannot detail the second, as an excuse they cannot detail the first.

The two things are so unlike, they do not bear comparison.

Their silly straw man is like the statement
" Of course we can travel to pluto, because Ive caught the bus 100 times to the local town" - or rather - they liken the fact you cannot tell them the details of the last 100 bus journeys you made, to the reason they cannot tell you how they get to pluto! They compare the mundane, with the near impossible.

But that sadly is the level of critical thinking on what is supposed to be a science forum!



As I pointed out even a researcher in “chemistry world” was skeptical they would ever know a complete path to life, and they were just hoping for ways of joining the dots up. That is The true status, even if you get shouted down for saying so here!
.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[SelfSim]

Its hard to discuss with somebody who hasn’t even clocked that science is a model. The laws are a model.

So the model has to follow the evidence.
The evidence doesn’t have to follow the model.

If the evidence doesn’t fit you need a new model.

You have the cart squarely in front the horse.

Science's objectively testable models have been distilled from objective observation for purposes of achieving useful predictability.
Show me how the incorporation of miracles, supposedly caused by a demonstrably believed-in entity, serve that purpose.

Mindgame.

Show me, objectively, how anything you perceive occurs independently from your mind. Good luck with that .. you'll need it because nothing else will rescue you from that self-made bog-hole! (As you should have already learned from our previous encounters on that topic).

A hydrogen molecule cannot self evolve and self replicate. Why? It isn’t complex enough. There is a minimum ( as yet unknown) complexity for anything that can. It needs some form of genome for starters. So irreducible complexity is a problem for abiogenesis. I didn’t say insurmountable , but it’s hard to see how it could ever be possible.

A hydrogen molecule isn't irreducibly complex. Have you even ever heard of the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Do you think that model was conceived by positing the existence of a miracle?
For the umpteenth time, (including linked-to references), the model of 'genome', is conceived as having evolved from simpler molecules for the purposes of developing practically testable abiogenesis hypotheses .. (just like the components of a hydrogen molecule were). No miracles in any of that ..

I find it hard to discuss with people who haven’t grasped a few basics about science and life.

The basics you've desperately and frantically made a grab for, are demonstrably belief based. Science's Laws aren't based on beliefs in miracles performed by a believed-in entity.

 

[Mountainmike]

Can’t you keep to the subject?
1/ the model must follow evidence, evidence doesn’t follow the model.

2/ I said a self evolving self replicating cell has a minimum irreducible complexity, so far unknown because the critical steps of abiogenesis are also unknown.

reductio ad absurdum, a hydrogen molecule cannot self evolve/ self replicate. The irreducible complexity is far more complex than that.

Science's objectively testable models have been distilled from objective observation for purposes of achieving useful predictability.
Show me how the incorporation of miracles, supposedly caused by a demonstrably believed-in entity, serve that purpose.
Show me, objectively, how anything you perceive occurs independently from your mind. Good luck with that .. you'll need it because nothing else will rescue you from that self-made bog-hole! (As you should have already learned from our previous encounters on that topic).
A hydrogen molecule isn't irreducibly complex. Have you even ever heard of the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Do you think that model was conceived by positing the existence of a miracle?
For the umpteenth time, (including linked-to references), the model of 'genome', is conceived as having evolved from simpler molecules for the purposes of developing practically testable abiogenesis hypotheses .. (just like the components of a hydrogen molecule were). No miracles in any of that ..
The basics you've desperately and frantically made a grab for, are demonstrably belief based. Science's Laws aren't based on beliefs in miracles performed by a believed-in entity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can’t you keep to the subject?
1/ the model must follow evidence, evidence doesn’t follow the model.

2/ I said a self evolving self replicating cell has a minimum irreducible complexity, so far unknown because the critical steps of abiogenesis are also unknown.

reductio ad absurdum, a hydrogen molecule cannot self evolve/ self replicate. The irreducible complexity is far more complex than that.

Speaking of you "must follow evidence", there does not appear to be any evidence at all for irreducible complexity. It is only a term that is not properly defined.

Creationists like to sound all sciency but they never seem to be able to justify their claims and beliefs.

How does one measure complexity? What is a unit of complexity? What scientific evidence is there for irreducible complexity at all? To date I have not seen any creationist do what should be this easy task for them.

 

[SelfSim]

1/ the model must follow evidence, evidence doesn’t follow the model.

2/ I said a self evolving self replicating cell has a minimum irreducible complexity, so far unknown because the critical steps of abiogenesis are also unknown.

You are just plain wrong.
From Genome Evolution from Random Ligation of RNAs of Autocatalytic Sets .. and don't tell me this is pure conjecture .. the title itself, as well as its publishing disclosure statement, declares its intention as being a testable hypothesis, (now having passed formal review), as distinct from your claims of pure conjecture.
The background.. for your edification:

In an autocatalytic set, a set of catalysts (i.e., molecules catalyzing a chemical reaction) are arranged such that the formation of each catalyst is achieved by other catalysts in the set, food sources (building blocks) provided. Thus, the whole set is autocatalytic, as opposed to a single molecule as stated by the RNA world hypothesis. The simplest autocatalytic set is one of two molecules that mutually catalyze the formation of one another.

You thus need to advance your understanding. The RNA world hypothesis has long since been updated, recognising the existing objectively sourced evidence for autocatalytic set self-replication.
So, now, for the experimental evidence:

Experimentally, such a system was created by Gerald Joyce and coworkers with two RNA ligase ribozymes catalyzing each other’s formation. Earlier, von Kiedrowski and coworkers generated cross-catalytic sets of short nucleotide sequences. A more complex autocatalytic set composed of up to 16 RNA molecules that assemble into a self-replicating set has been achieved by Lehman and coworkers. New ribozyme functionalities have been successfully generated by recombination and an RNA-based autocatalytic set that couples anabolism and catabolism has been reported. More recently, it was shown experimentally that a ribozyme can diversify and achieve multiple functions within an autocatalytic set and that there is a trade-off between reproductive fitness and variation, providing insights into the evolutionary dynamics of autocatalytic sets.

.. and they already have been demonstrated as existing in the environment:

Of note, such an autocatalytic set can be composed of other biomolecules as well. For example, a complex peptide-based autocatalytic set has been reported. Autocatalytic sets also exist in nature and have been, for example, identified in the metabolism of Escherichia coli, providing evidence that autocatalytic sets evolved naturally.

You are just plain wrong!