Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

[Frank Robert]

I understand it perfectly.

A recipe Implies a process from raw materials to product.

You still do not understand that not everyone is on the same page as you for synonyms.

In the case of life, small molecules are the supposed raw materials, the present minimum complexity cell is the product.

Almost none of that process is conjectured , and none of it is known for sure, and it’s a process that is supposed to just happen and work without a chef. As I pointed out the announcement of ribozyme 6.61 is overhyped because that was clearly a product of a chef, so is arguably discountable, although it is clearly interesting.

It is statements of yours like this one that raise my doubt in you being a scientist. The study in the OP shows a plausible path leading to the first cell. The study does not claim "that abiogenesis has been solved."

I’m not as anti abiogenesis as you think.
I remain to be persuaded.

Good to hear.

On EM , the actual evidence looks good.
Go on - challenge your preconceptions - read cardiologist Serafinis book on EM, then judge the evidence . The only part that might go over your head is Maternal DNA haplogroups - but that serves to prove the depth of the science. Not so easily discountable.

Who is discounting the challenges ahead of them. Did you read the NASA paper which outlined many of the difficulties ahead?

You do get the idea that a practising and fairly well known non religious pathologist Robert Lawrence who studied the evidence , stated it is “compelling evidence of creation” on behalf of tesorieros book. By what scientific right do you contest such a statement?

I am not contesting his statement. I often comment on here that I am more persuaded about biblical creation by scientists like Kenneth Miller who happen to be devout Christians. For a broader perspective try Peaceful Science where you can interact with scientists, theists, atheists and even creationists.

 

[Mountainmike]

The study in the OP shows a plausible path leading to the first cell.

If you understood it, which you probably didn’t, it was conjecture about a stage in a part of a process. Which maybe…possibly..perhaps…might have been involved . Or maybe not. And whatever this particular stage was guided, and had limited replication stages.

And that’s my problem with OOL research. The true status is way overhyped. People see what they want to see.
It’s category “interesting conjecture “ for those who think RNA world was a stage a long the way. I pointed at a more primitive concept.

You said creationists fail to produce evidence of scientific value.
I’m not a creationist, I’m a scientist assessing it.
Em analysis clearly has scientific value.
It notes actual events at specific times and places .
Abiogenesis research doesn’t.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you understood it, which you probably didn’t, it was conjecture about a stage in a part of a process. Which maybe…possibly..perhaps…might have been involved . Or maybe not. And whatever this particular stage was guided, and had limited replication stages.

It was a breakthrough with the long-term goal is to build a self-evolving system in the lab.

“By understanding the fundamental complexity of life, in the laboratory, we can start to estimate the chances of life on other planets and determine the likelihood that planets such as Mars either had or still have the potential to harbor life.”​

And that’s my problem with OOL research. The true status is way overhyped. People see what they want to see.
It’s category “interesting conjecture “ for those who think RNA world was a stage a long the way. I pointed at a more primitive concept.

Please provide a link to any scientists who are claiming that abiogenesis has been solved.

You said creationists fail to produce evidence of scientific value.
I’m not a creationist, I’m a scientist assessing it.

Really?
I would venture that most scientists and others interested in the science of abiogenesis would agree that the breakthrough has value and is a feasible path for further scientific inquiry when all you appear able to do is to play it down. I do not know if you are a creationist or a scientist but you certainly come across as sharing the creationist religious beliefs.

Em analysis clearly has scientific value.

What is Em and what scientific evidence do have for it?

It notes actual events at specific times and places .
Abiogenesis research doesn’t.

No one is suggesting that the events and atmosphere that took place ~4 billion years ago can be recreated.

 

[Sophrosyne]

When you bake a cake you need a recipe and follow the recipe one step at a time The first step in building the recipe is discovering the right ingredients.

Theistic evolutionists examine God's natural laws to recreate the recipe for abiogenesis and delight in their God's work. In genesis God rested on the 7th day after his work was done.

I refuse to consider Christians seriously that think in the beginning God created RNA soup and called it good and then retired. This thread isn't about how things would fare beyond the first living cell but rather the notion that random chance could get there to begin with. I scoff at a god that is impotent to the point he can't create a whole human being at will but he can create a whole universe from nothing.... it makes no sense to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is Em and what scientific evidence do have for it?

It's either an E-minor chord (not the one that David played and pleased the lord) or he's fallen in to the "Bbc" capitalization where Nasa is a space agency (instead of the proper official NASA) and Nato is a military alliance and means "EM" for electromagnetism. If only he'd read a good book on EM like Jackson (OK, comprehensive, but well hated) maybe he wouldn't think that EM is related to abiogensis.

 

[Frank Robert]

I refuse to consider Christians seriously that think in the beginning God created RNA soup

I doubt that such Christians will have any difficulty surviving regardless of your religious beliefs.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The age of a hypothesis does not disqualify its value. The Intelligent Design hypothesis has its routes William Paley's watchmaker analogy from the early 1800s. The present study is on the RNA world hypotheses which has not been falsified the current 2021 study provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

If you have a alternative hypothesis or theory with supporting scientific evidence as an alternative lets discuss it.

My view is quite straightforward. Let me use an analogy. A detective may gather a great deal of evidence that points to a particular suspect. He may charge that suspect based on the evidence. If, however, the suspect has an indisputable alibi, the detective has no case, no matter how compelling the evidence. He can keep searching and keep trying to prove his case. He will never succeed because the suspect could not have committed the crime.

Evolutionists are like that detective. They know full well that evolution is a theory. However, to a great number of scientific and educational institutions, it is in reality proven. That attitude is promoted in said institutions. Any apparent or real flaws in the theory are dismissed, often contemptuously. This is often accompanied by the arrogant assumption that one day, all will become clear and evolution will be no longer a theory but a proven fact.

I'll not now go into why I believe evolution is fatally flawed. It's 2.40 am where I am.

By the way, the concept of falsification has been rejected by much of the scientific community.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I doubt that such Christians will have any difficulty surviving regardless of your religious beliefs.

Nope.... when people buy into the idea that we don't need God to explain the world as it is then they also don't think they need God either.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope.... when people buy into the idea that we don't need God to explain the world as it is then they also don't think they need God either.

Here is an analogy. Think of God as the architect. Do architects build the buildings they design?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Here is an analogy. Think of God as the architect. Do architects build the buildings they design?

Absolutely some do just that, they learn from building better ways to build and learn to draw up plans to do what they need to build. Engineers often build things because the first design of something new nobody has in their mind how to build it other than the designer himself.

 

[Frank Robert]

Any apparent or real flaws in the theory are dismissed, often contemptuously. This is often accompanied by the arrogant assumption that one day, all will become clear and evolution will be no longer a theory but a proven fact.

You need to identify the flaws if you want a response.

 

[Frank Robert]

Absolutely some do just that, they learn from building better ways to build and learn to draw up plans to do what they need to build. Engineers often build things because the first design of something new nobody has in their mind how to build it other than the designer himself.

Perhaps for a small endeavor like a single family house, but how about a moderate building like a 36 story condo?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Perhaps for a small endeavor like a single family house, but how about a moderate building like a 36 story condo?

We are talking about God aren't we still? Or did you are you just trying to make me herd geese?

 

[Hans Blaster]

My view is quite straightforward. Let me use an analogy. A detective may gather a great deal of evidence that points to a particular suspect. He may charge that suspect based on the evidence. If, however, the suspect has an indisputable alibi, the detective has no case, no matter how compelling the evidence. He can keep searching and keep trying to prove his case. He will never succeed because the suspect could not have committed the crime.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as an indisputable alibi, especially when crimes can be contracted out.

Evolutionists are like that detective. They know full well that evolution is a theory. However, to a great number of scientific and educational institutions, it is in reality proven. That attitude is promoted in said institutions. Any apparent or real flaws in the theory are dismissed, often contemptuously. This is often accompanied by the arrogant assumption that one day, all will become clear and evolution will be no longer a theory but a proven fact.

A theory is an explanatory framework for data, not a supposition. Basic evolution is also incredibly well supported by data. Most of the refutations *can* be dismissed offhand for the same reasons I would dismiss claims of "electric gravity". (Oh they exist. SMH.)

I'll not now go into why I believe evolution is fatally flawed. It's 2.40 am where I am.

Likewise here. I'm sure I've heard these arguments before and if they were the type of fatal flaws you think they were, science would not have ignored them.

By the way, the concept of falsification has been rejected by much of the scientific community.

"Falsification" is oversold. It's a nice thing, but Popper was wrong about it being the be all end all of science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is Em and what scientific evidence do have for it?

I assume it's his shorthand for Eucharistic Miracles. And his "scientific" evidence is mostly hearsay and assertions. Don't expect him to produce any evidence, he will just tell you to read non-peer reviewed articles in spanish and assert that the unsupported claims they make are unassailable.

 

[Frank Robert]

We are talking about God aren't we still? Or did you are you just trying to make me herd geese?

And I provided the analogy of an architect. Most main stream Christian denomination would understand the analogy that their God is the intelligent designer. An omni deity would have no need to continually tweak his design after setting natural laws into motion.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And I provided the analogy of an architect. Most main stream Christian denomination would understand the analogy that their God is the intelligent designer. An omni deity would have no need to continually tweak his design after setting natural laws into motion.

An omnipotent God wouldn't need to resort to a long drawn out method of creating life nor would he need to just design it and have some angels or "natural laws" do the work for him he would have the power to do it all and do it in good time. The Bible equates man being created whole and perfect and complete. Logically speaking if man himself had the power to create life would he just put goo on rocks and then walk away and watch netflix for a hundred million or whatever years and then come and say.... finally my creation? No. Man would create higher levels of life even other humans or human like creatures maybe a better horse or pet etc. The idea that someone intelligent enough to create "laws of nature" would act in the manner you suggest is ludicrous indeed.

 

[Frank Robert]

An omnipotent God wouldn't need to resort to a long drawn out method of creating life nor would he need to just design it and have some angels or "natural laws" do the work for him he would have the power to do it all and do it in good time. The Bible equates man being created whole and perfect and complete. Logically speaking if man himself had the power to create life would he just put goo on rocks and then walk away and watch netflix for a hundred million or whatever years and then come and say.... finally my creation? No. Man would create higher levels of life even other humans or human like creatures maybe a better horse or pet etc. The idea that someone intelligent enough to create "laws of nature" would act in the manner you suggest is ludicrous indeed.

From your comment, it appears you have reached the realization that everything and I mean everything about intelligent design is based solely on religious belief and that are literally hundreds of Christian denominations many different beliefs. The essence of creationism is nothing more than apologetics for creationist religious belief.

See: Creationist and Fundamentalist Apologetics.

I find it revealing that creationists want their minority religious belief raised to compete with science without any regard for the hundreds of other Christian denominations that believe otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it revealing that creationists want their minority religious belief raised to compete with science without any regard for the hundreds of other Christian denominations that believe otherwise.

Not this creationist.

Science can take a hike.

And for the record, if "hundreds of other Christian denominations" is a salient point against Christendom, is the fact that every single Christian who ever lived, is alive today, or will be alive tomorrow, believes "In the beginning, God" a salient point for the existence of God?

If Christendom can be diluted with denominations, can it be strengthened with [100%] consensus?

 

[Frank Robert]

Not this creationist.

Science can take a hike.

And for the record, if "hundreds of other Christian denominations" is a salient point against Christendom, is the fact that every single Christian who ever lived, is alive today, or will be alive tomorrow, believes "In the beginning, God" a salient point for the existence of God?

If Christendom can be diluted with denominations, can it be strengthened with [100%] consensus?

I have made no claims against Christendom. All I said I find it revealing that a minority denomination wants their religious belief elevated abover their fellow Christians' religious belief that does not who agree with them. This is not arrangement between favoring one religious belief against each other.