Kylie's Pool Challenge

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It’s pretty pointless responding to posts that contain such non sequiturs , sophistry and straw men.

So don't.

I can post plenty of links to papers that show what they DID find.
Which speaks volumes about what they didn’t find!

Not unless they were looking for what they didn't find.

Then…. Real science is multidisciplinary.

I guess there aren't many 'Real scientists'™ around, then.

I cannot be bothered responding to nit picking.

So don't.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not unless they were looking for what they didn't find.
.

Double negatives. Try the positive.

Those in Costa Rica and Colorado were looking for life diversity in volcanic pools, they found none. Just one or two bacteria species.
So they looked for cells and said “ what are these”, then analysed them.

None of them said….
Oh this is unusual, not seen this before.
It’s a cell but unlike any we have seen.

The dog did not bark.

Science does not have clean boundaries.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Those in Costa Rica and Colorado were looking for life diversity in volcanic pools, they found none. Just one or two bacteria species.
So they looked for cells and said “ what are these”, then analysed them.

Citation?

 

[Mountainmike]

Citation?

People have studied these places for decades.

This took 2 minutes to find.
If there had been unusual or unknown cells they would have said so.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1719

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

People have studied these places for decades.

This took 2 minutes to find.
If there had been unusual or unknown cells they would have said so.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1719

OK - a 'Mars analogue' environment is not representative of the range of suggested abiogenic environments on Earth through geological history - and I note that the authors say that the microbe they found is of "significant interest to the search for past or present life on the Red Planet."

So, they were looking for microbial life in a contemporary Mars environment, not proto life in a contemporary Earth environment, let alone an early Earth environment.

IOW, red-herring.

 

[Mountainmike]

They did a detailed analysis of a real pond.
All they found were known bacteria .
Not diverse either.

it’s true They were looking at a pond they thought might mimic Mars. It doesn’t alter the conclusion. These ponds, vents and cracks have been examined for decades.

OK - a 'Mars analogue' environment is not representative of the range of suggested abiogenic environments on Earth through geological history - and I note that the authors say that the microbe they found is of "significant interest to the search for past or present life on the Red Planet."

So, they were looking for microbial life in a contemporary Mars environment, not proto life in a contemporary Earth environment, let alone an early Earth environment.

IOW, red-herring.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They did a detailed analysis of a real pond.
All they found were known bacteria .
Not diverse either.

it’s true They were looking at a pond they thought might mimic Mars. It doesn’t alter the conclusion. These ponds, vents and cracks have been examined for decades.

As before, even if they were explicitly looking for protocells in an environment thought to be similar to where life might have arisen on the early Earth (not Mars), no competent scientist would say that because they didn't find any, there are none and there never were. That's not just scientific caution, it's simple logic (the 'black swan' problem).

And, as before, a number of reasons have already been given for why they might not find any even if they were still being produced today, which seems unlikely.

 

[SelfSim]

OK - a 'Mars analogue' environment is not representative of the range of suggested abiogenic environments on Earth through geological history

As discussed somewhere in our past, (here at CFs?), there are also models which argue for multiple forms of life realised through multiple different historical pathways. So from this perspective, evidence for multiple origins of life on Earth are possible and what we see today is a convergent product of those multiple origins.

Looking for a specific, single instance of 'a protocell' would then obviously be a total:

.. red-herring.

 

[SelfSim]

Incidentally, (for anyone wondering), what we see @Mountainmike doing in this thread, (IMO), from the viewpoint of @Kylie 's original pool table scenario, is he's working backwards from supposedly forensic 'science' tests, which he thinks 'proves' the story left in the document .. (ie: that the balls were actually placed on the table). He is revising that story, with his own embellishment, that this was done via just another 'miraculous' act. (As if his addition somehow improves the plausibility of the original placement story).

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile in the land of truth:

Kylie didn’t make specific whether she referred to life, universe or both.

The analogy is bad every which way. It is a straw man, The balls in either case are still moving. There is little or no evidence of the “break” . So the jury is out. Catholic attitude to science is far from being afraid of it, it embraces it. If indeed life from soup was chemistry , great! But There is only conjecture at present, however much it is overplayed.

Indeed a notable catholic in regard of this thread was lemaitre who was a catholic priest who wrote the first paper on the Big Bang! 1931?

On your last point. We have entered a time of “reverse Galileo”

It is sceptics who dare not look at the evidence of ( such as) so called Eucharistic miracles! They are Scared at what they might find. Which is why some universities refuse even to test them! It is sceptics making faith based unchecked claims on them! The actual science of those EM showing cardiac tissue points one way.

A book has been written by a cardiologist on them, fully supportive.

So yes I believe that book.
Was it THAT book @Kylie had in mind?

There is No parallel book on EM by a sceptic. Because there is no contesting science.

Incidentally, (for anyone wondering), what we see @Mountainmike doing in this thread, (IMO), from the viewpoint of @Kylie 's original pool table scenario, is he's working backwards from supposedly forensic 'science' tests, which he thinks 'proves' the story left in the document .. (ie: that the balls were actually placed on the table). He is revising that story, with his own embellishment, that this was done via just another 'miraculous' act. (As if his addition somehow improves the plausibility of the original placement story).

 

[SelfSim]

So yes I believe that book.

Glad you agree that its nothing more than your belief ..

Was it THAT book @Kylie had in mind?

Might as well be .. it supports her point about the third person believing in everything it supposedly says, (according to more of your beliefs about what it supposedly says ..)

There is No parallel book on EM by a sceptic. Because there is no contesting science.

Because beliefs are fundamentally untestable .. and therefore of little objective interest .. put 'em all on the pile in the corner .. along with all the rest of 'em.

 

[pgp_protector]

The accepted definition is self replicating and self evolving.
It either can or it can’t. So it is a bright line.

Those who want to disavow it , do so because they know it creates a problem they cannot solve called “irreducible complexity”
- It’s cannot be simple to self replicate and evolve.
- It must be simple to happen as an event caused by the chance encounter of nonliving chemicals
So it’s easier to pretend the line is blurred, since they cannot solve the paradox.

So is a Virus alive?
If fits both those definitions.

 

[Yttrium]

So is a Virus alive?
If fits both those definitions.

A virus isn't self-replicating. It needs to invade a cell to use its genetic material in order to replicate.

But it's kinda sorta living in a manner of speaking...

 

[Astrid]

A virus isn't self-replicating. It needs to invade a cell to use its genetic material in order to replicate.

But it's kinda sorta living in a manner of speaking...

...depending on what alive means.

Its really something, the way some people get so
upset with the fact that there is a fuzzy area
wherecno exact distinction can be made between
living and non living.

 

[SelfSim]

A virus isn't self-replicating. It needs to invade a cell to use its genetic material in order to replicate.

But it's kinda sorta living in a manner of speaking...

Its 'kinda sorta living' only when it exists amongst downtown-life-central (ie: the Earth's biosphere).
Now, if virus colonies only are (conclusively) found on some local moon/planet/body, then things would really hot-up and the definition of 'life' would be seriously up for grabs, (yet again), eh!

The point is, the definition of 'life' is dependent entirely on physical context and the results of tests within that specific context. In an isolated non-Earth context, for eg, it is just another word/testable hypothesis (thus far, without consistent results), or any objective meaning within that context.
In the context of Abiogenesis hypotheses, it has no useful, practical applications, so relying on it there, is akin to relying on words with an empty meaning.

 

[coffee4u]

So is a Virus alive?
If fits both those definitions.

Not by biblical standard of life which is only creatures with life blood and a soul.

 

[SelfSim]

Not by biblical standard of life which is only creatures with life blood and a soul.

Sounds like plants, along with a bunch of other lifeforms, didn't make 'the final cut' then ..(?)

 

[Kylie]

Sounds like plants, along with a bunch of other lifeforms, didn't make 'the final cut' then ..(?)

I came here to say that!

 

[coffee4u]

Sounds like plants, along with a bunch of other lifeforms, didn't make 'the final cut' then ..(?)

Plants do not. You would never see Hebrew literature talking about the 'death' of a plant, it would say faded or withered.

 

[Kylie]

Plants do not. You would never see Hebrew literature talking about the 'death' of a plant, it would say faded or withered.

So the "Biblical standard" is wrong?