- Oct 29, 2017
- 64,342
- 10,658
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Are you speculating that the trolls popped out of the rocks and created all of the other life forms?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In Norse mythology, trolls often live in rocks.
A variety of basic organic monomers. A sea of almost life.
Mainstream theoretically modelled organic chemistry is conceived for the purpose of making reproducible predictions. Its basis is deeply rooted in the empirical method.Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method.
The principles of both inorganic and organic chemistry have very sound, reproducible physical bases.HARK! said:Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.
Amino acids have been spectrographically detected in deep space gas clouds.What created this "sea of almost life?" Where can we find evidence of these "basic organic monomers" being created, outside of life forms, today?
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.
In the Miller-Urey experiment.What created this "sea of almost life?" Where can we find evidence of these "basic organic monomers" being created, outside of life forms, today?
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.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.
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?
Self-replication would seem to be a useful distinction at this point in time.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?"
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.Where do you draw the line between life, and "almost life?"
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.
Self-replication would seem to be a useful distinction at this point in time.
No .. The field of study into abiogenesis produces hypotheses which make testable predictions.HARK! said:Until abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it's still in the realm of speculation.
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.
Oxidation occurs within biological processes and in fires. In that sense, fires and biology are indistinct.Fire self replicates.
No .. The field of study into abiogenesis produces hypotheses which make testable predictions.
Mainstream Abiogenesis is therefore primarly, a scientific hypothesis itself.
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.
Everything in science is operationally defined (meaning testable in principle, or has alreay been tested and is subject to provisionality and contextuality.Is not science defined anymore?
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.HARK! said:Is the definition of life a matter of opinion?
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).HARK! said:Does the majority opinion define the facts; or are all opinions held with equal regard?
Reference link, please?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.
Yes, if by 'results' you mean the conclusion drawn from the data rather than the data themselves.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.
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.Until abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it's still in the realm of speculation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?