Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[HARK!]

In Norse mythology, trolls often live in rocks.

Are you speculating that the trolls popped out of the rocks and created all of the other life forms?

 

[Speedwell]

Such as?

A variety of basic organic monomers. A sea of almost life.

 

[HARK!]

A variety of basic organic monomers. A sea of almost life.

What created this "sea of almost life?" Where can we find evidence of these "basic organic monomers" being created, outside of life forms, today?

 

[SelfSim]

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method.

Mainstream theoretically modelled organic chemistry is conceived for the purpose of making reproducible predictions. Its basis is deeply rooted in the empirical method.

Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

The principles of both inorganic and organic chemistry have very sound, reproducible physical bases.

Some organic reactions, suspected as playing a significant role in abiogenesis, are chaotic (meaning: they exhibit both uniqueness and self-similarity).
Nonetheless, they can still be described deterministically.
ETA: See this link to the Belousov-Zhabotonsky reaction

 

[SelfSim]

What created this "sea of almost life?" Where can we find evidence of these "basic organic monomers" being created, outside of life forms, today?

Amino acids have been spectrographically detected in deep space gas clouds.

PS: See link here.
PPS: It also says:

Previously, the team demonstrated that irradiating interstellar ice ‘look-alikes’ generated compounds called amphiphiles that can organize themselves to form membranes; and molecules called quinones that play important roles in the metabolism of all living organisms on Earth. The next step, they say, will be to tackle the issue of left- and right-handed amino acids. Both forms exist in space, but only the left-handed forms are used by life on Earth.

 

[Speedwell]

What created this "sea of almost life?" Where can we find evidence of these "basic organic monomers" being created, outside of life forms, today?

In the Miller-Urey experiment. But you appear to be assuming that there is a hard line between non-life and life. Care to expand on that a little?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

That doesn't mean every observation of every experimental replication will be identical, particularly where stochastic events are an integral part of the experiment. In such cases, the replication may be an attempted confirmation of the principle(s) underlying the experiment. It really all depends on the hypothesis being tested.

For example, if you ran multiple replications of an experiment that has determined that a particular bacterium can evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic, you would not expect them all to take exactly the same time or number of generations or produce identical mutations. In some cases, a colony might not evolve resistance at all. Variability in the results is expected because of the stochastic nature of mutations - so various statistical methods are used for analysing results and comparing results across replications.

This is also why abiogenesis research is not specifically aiming to reproduce the origin of life on Earth, but hoping to find one or more ways in which life could have arisen - there may be more than one way to skin that cat and we don't know the original method - that's why empirical research is continuing.

 

[HARK!]

In the Miller-Urey experiment. But you appear to be assuming that there is a hard line between non-life and life. Care to expand on that a little?

I don't recall drawing a line. If I did; I would welcome you to point it out to me.

You were the one who brought up the subject of "almost life."

Where do you draw the line between life, and "almost life?"

 

[SelfSim]

I don't recall drawing a line. If I did; I would welcome you to point it out to me.

You were the one who brought up the subject of "almost life."

Where do you draw the line between life, and "almost life?"

Self-replication would seem to be a useful distinction at this point in time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where do you draw the line between life, and "almost life?"

It's 'life' isn't a well-defined concept, there are fuzzy edges; it's a matter of varying definitions and opinions. For example, last I heard, most biologists would say that viruses are not alive because they don't meet the common criteria for life; OTOH some think they should qualify, according to different criteria.

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life." Wikipedia

 

[HARK!]

That doesn't mean every observation of every experimental replication will be identical, particularly where stochastic events are an integral part of the experiment. In such cases, the replication may be an attempted confirmation of the principle(s) underlying the experiment. It really all depends on the hypothesis being tested.

For example, if you ran multiple replications of an experiment that has determined that a particular bacterium can evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic, you would not expect them all to take exactly the same time or number of generations or produce identical mutations. In some cases, a colony might not evolve resistance at all. Variability in the results is expected because of the stochastic nature of mutations - so various statistical methods are used for analysing results and comparing results across replications.

This is also why abiogenesis research is not specifically aiming to reproduce the origin of life on Earth, but hoping to find one or more ways in which life could have arisen - there may be more than one way to skin that cat and we don't know the original method - that's why empirical research is continuing.

If we perform the same experiment, and get different results; this demonstrates that there are unknown factors, which haven't be considered. I touched in this earlier in the tread.

Until abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it's still in the realm of speculation.

 

[HARK!]

Self-replication would seem to be a useful distinction at this point in time.

Fire self replicates.

 

[SelfSim]

Until abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it's still in the realm of speculation.

No .. The field of study into abiogenesis produces hypotheses which make testable predictions.
Mainstream Abiogenesis is therefore primarly, a scientific hypothesis itself.

 

[HARK!]

It's 'life' isn't a well-defined concept, there are fuzzy edges; it's a matter of varying definitions and opinions. For example, last I heard, most biologists would say that viruses are not alive because they don't meet the common criteria for life; OTOH some think they should qualify, according to different criteria.

Is not science defined anymore? Is the definition of life a matter of opinion? Does the majority opinion define the facts; or are all opinions held with equal regard?

 

[SelfSim]

Fire self replicates.

Oxidation occurs within biological processes and in fires. In that sense, fires and biology are indistinct.

Biological self-replication however, does not occcur in fires .. which is why it is a convenient distinction.

 

[HARK!]

No .. The field of study into abiogenesis produces hypotheses which make testable predictions.
Mainstream Abiogenesis is therefore primarly, a scientific hypothesis itself.

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:


In other words, a guess based on limited evidence.

 

[HARK!]

Oxidation occurs within biological processes and in fires. In that sense, fires and biology are indistinct.

Biological self-replication however, does not occcur in fires .. which is why it is a convenient distinction.

This doesn't define life. I didn't ask what life is not. I asked what life is.

 

[SelfSim]

Is not science defined anymore?

Everything in science is operationally defined (meaning testable in principle, or has alreay been tested and is subject to provisionality and contextuality.

Is the definition of life a matter of opinion?

No. Definitions of 'life' in science are operationally defined. Thus far, viruses have not been found to exist independently from our tested context of 'life' (ie: Earth's biosphere). There is therefore no way to distinguish between life and viruses .. but that doesn't mean viruses are necessarily definable as living organisms. To do that, there must be objective evidence which forms the basis of an objectively testable distinction.

Does the majority opinion define the facts; or are all opinions held with equal regard?

Opinions are based on beliefs. Some beliefs are testable. Some aren't. Testable beliefs form the basis of scientific hypotheses, which are distinct from beliefs by way of a testably worded definition (ie: operational definition, once again).

 

[SelfSim]

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:


In other words, a guess based on limited evidence.

Reference link, please?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If we perform the same experiment, and get different results; this demonstrates that there are unknown factors, which haven't be considered. I touched in this earlier in the tread.

Yes, if by 'results' you mean the conclusion drawn from the data rather than the data themselves.

Until abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it's still in the realm of speculation.

That's one view - although I think most biologists would say that, given the evidence to date, it's the particular process involved that is speculative. IOW there is no reasonable doubt that it occurred (at one time there was no life but the 'building blocks' of life were present; at a later time there was simple life), the question is exactly how it occurred.