The Genetic Code

[Astrid]

Says what scientific evidence?

For some its the product of personal infallubility at bible- interpreting

 

[Mountainmike]

The actual evidence behind the Abiogenesis hypothesis

Absolutely none that it did happen where it happened or how it happened or where it happened. .

Some plausibility arguments on how parts of it might have happened. It is good that one of us looks at what is there instead of through abiogenesis tinted glasses.

The intellectual dishonesty by you and others who try to promote it beyond conjecture is mind blowing, not ONE of you are scientists by virtue of the inability to determine what is a hypothesis, and what is a guess or conjecture.

Here is the intellectual dishonesty in a single analogy:
A heap of tyres , even an engine is not evidence of self designing cars.

I am open to persuasion about abiogenesis. By an actual structure for the first / simplest living cell and how that can have happened from non living constituents. Experiments to confirm that step make it a hypothesis. The rest is just conjecture,

I come here for a scientific discussion but sadly there are no scientists here. Or they would know the definitions of “life” and “ hypothesis”. Certainly not you.

I get it.
Your atheist faith demands belief in abiogenesis. But that it is all it is. Belief with some plausibility arguments.

I await an actual hypothesis on how it happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I get it.
Your atheist faith demands belief in abiogenesis. But that it is all it is. Belief with some plausibility arguments.

No you don't get it and you seem determined to never get it. Atheism's got nothing to do with this. (As far as I can tell you edited your original post to add this crack against atheists. Faith we don't need faith. That's why we are atheists, because we know that faith is useless to us.)

 

[SelfSim]

Absolutely none that it did happen where it happened or how it happened or where it happened. .

Some plausibility arguments on how parts of it might have happened. It is good that one of us looks at what is there instead of through abiogenesis tinted glasses.

The intellectual dishonesty by you and others who try to promote it beyond conjecture is mind blowing, not ONE of you are scientists by virtue of the inability to determine what is a hypothesis, and what is a guess or conjecture.

You still don't get it.

Abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis ... within that context, there is no useful role for claims about it 'having happened, how it happened, or where it happened'.

Can you understand that context through your fog of misconceived beliefs yet?

Here is the intellectual dishonesty in a single analogy:
A heap of tyres , even an engine is not evidence of self designing cars.

Again you seek truth of your belief in 'self-design'. 'Design' is what human engineers did in the case of cars because there is a massive amount of objective evidence for humans having set about the deliberate engineering process of design (like documentated plans, papers, costing models, etc). On those objective bases, inferences are drawn that cars are accepted as having been objectively designed. Designed cars are then accepted as being part of science's Objective reality.

However, you are a truth-seeker .. you believe that there is a designer, so you go looking for that. That is not how science operates; Mr self-claimed, 'Scientist'!
Science tests such concepts and its results never assume or rely on posited truths and then goes looking for their existence.

I am open to persuasion about abiogenesis. By an actual structure for the first / simplest living cell and how that can have happened from non living constituents. Experiments to confirm that step make it a hypothesis. The rest is just conjecture,

No .. that's a lie .. you have extensively demonstrated for months and months and hundreds of postings, that you are not even open to recognising the concept of an objectively testable hypothesis by completely ignoring the spelled out context of that message by many mulitples of posters.
'Open to persuasion'? Who are you trying to kid?

I come here for a scientific discussion but sadly there are no scientists here. Or they would know the definitions of “life” and “ hypothesis”. Certainly not you.

What 'life' means is subject to the context in which the term is used - same as any other word. Eg: viruses, or prions, or hypothetical life proposed as being possible on Saturn's moon Titan, or in Venus' atmosphere, etc.

I know this, because it is verified in many ways in precursor chemical evolution research papers and even in NASA's Astrobiology published strategy documents which clearly spell out the issues/pitfalls of relying too heavily on a definition of life, for its objective research programs.

I get it.
Your atheist faith demands belief in abiogenesis. But that it is all it is. Belief with some plausibility arguments.

I am not an Atheist. There .. whaddya gonna do about that, now?

I await an actual hypothesis on how it happened.

You can wait for that until your eventual demise .. because science doesn't operate on hunts for Holy Grails.
(Not that you have shown even a glimmer of such recongition of that, for over hundreds of your postings now).

 

[Mountainmike]

is a testable hypothesis ...

Despite all the blather and waffle.

You use words whose meaning you still don’t know.
You cannot test it till you have a process for the step from no life to the simplest cell. You don’t even have a structure for the step that is abiogenesis. Only then can you test it. Only then do you have a hypothesis.

Someone send selfsim on a science 101 class.
Change that. First grade science, then 101

I give up. I will talk to scientists instead.

 

[Mountainmike]

No you don't get it and you seem determined to never get it. Atheism's got nothing to do with this. (As far as I can tell you edited your original post to add this crack against atheists. Faith we don't need faith. That's why we are atheists, because we know that faith is useless to us.)

But you all believe in abiogenesis! Which of you is arguing against?
Your other options are limited, that’s why you all overstate the evidentiary position for abiogenesis!

You all fire the cheap shot repeatedly that somehow believers are more disposed to believe evidence in miracles. No we aren’t. None of us is obliged to believe in them and many of us don’t!: we don’t rule them out a priori so at least we can have an open mind on it. Atheists have no other option than to assume life came from abiogenesis, so they cannot have an open mind, what other choice have they? The bias boot is on the other foot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But you all believe in abiogenesis! Which of you is arguing against?
Your other options are limited, that’s why you all overstate the evidentiary position for abiogenesis!

You all fire the cheap shot repeatedly that somehow believers are more disposed to believe evidence in miracles. No we aren’t. None of us is obliged to believe in them and many of us don’t!: we don’t rule them out a priori so at least we can have an open mind on it. Atheists have no other option than to assume life came from abiogenesis, so they cannot have an open mind, what other choice have they? The bias boot is on the other foot.

You really don't listen do you? Not about atheists. Not about abiogenesis. And apparently not about miracles either.

 

[Mountainmike]

You really don't listen do you? Not about atheists. Not about abiogenesis. And apparently not about miracles either.

I don’t listen to disingenuous arguments no. I’m still waiting for presentation of an actual hypothesis for abiogenesis. I might even believ e it depending what they come with,

I’m happy for you ( for example) to come up with a hypothesis for how Eucharistic miracles were faked. But you haven’t, and I don’t think you will. Most of the arguments given are from incredulity not the evidence. I actually find that kind of discussion stimulating. It can lead to questions I need to answer for myself.

Out of curiosity I’m the opposite to you.

I came into the church from outside, I was not a cradle Catholic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don’t listen to disingenuous arguments no. I’m still waiting for presentation of an actual hypothesis for abiogenesis. I might even believ e it depending what they come with,

As others have noted previously, you haven't presented a criticism of abiogenesis that looks anything like the things origin-of-life researchers work on. To my knowledge, none of us work on OOL and what is widely disseminated as sort of "low level" understandings of OOL work are things like Miller-Urey and the hydrovent hypothesis. As we have discussed previously these both are out of date to some extent.

If you want some understanding of what OOL researchers actually think are viable paths try section 3.3 of the NASA Astrobiology Primer I have posted. (I think in this thread.)

 

[renniks]

Says what scientific evidence?

That's backwards... what you need is solid evidence that abiogenesis does happen.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's backwards... what you need is solid evidence that abiogenesis does happen.

You made a very specific claim (whether you realize it or not) about chemical evolution, etc., to which I asked what scientific evidence you had to back your assertion.

 

[renniks]

You made a very specific claim (whether you realize it or not) about chemical evolution, etc., to which I asked what scientific evidence you had to back your assertion.

The theory of abiogenesis makes the assumption that the chemical reactions that happen inside the cell (producing proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.) also naturally occur outside the cell.
Science doesn't operate on assumptions.
If we can't observe it happening now, as far as science goes it didn't happen.

 

[SelfSim]

Planets are generally oblate spheroidal(ish) in shape .. until one is observed that isn't.
Fluid rivers flow downhill ... until one is observed that doesn't.
Life is based on a triplet genetic code .. until one is observed that isn't:

Triplet codons work well on Earth, but it’s not clear if that would be true elsewhere—life in the cosmos might differ significantly in its chemistry or in its coding. The genetic code is "presumably derivative and subservient to the biochemistry of peptides" that are required for life to work, said Drew Endy, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University and president of the BioBricks Foundation, who was not involved in the study. In environments more complex than Earth, life might need to be encoded by quadruplet codons, but in much simpler settings, life might get by with mere doublet codons—that is, of course, if it uses codons at all.

So, in those contexts, would it still be called 'life'?

Its speculative .. but they're setting about modifying the genetic code to quadruplet codons, to see if it still functions. Yes .. we have a human designer in this case because they're leaving behind a trail of objective evidence showing how they're going about it (and it'll be repeatable). And, they may still not be able to achieve their goals because life as we know it, is adapted towards preferring a triplet code.

No-one is saying anything about life's origins being known, or that the currently known encoding scheme is 'the only one'.

Further:

Not everyone agrees that creating a full quad-coded life form will be simple. “I don’t think anything they show suggests that it’s going to be easy—but they do show it’s not impossible, and that’s interesting,” said Floyd Romesberg, a synthetic biologist who cofounded the biotech company Synthorx. Getting something that works poorly to work better is a “very, very different game” than trying to do the impossible.

Demonstrating that its possible, removes the necessity of an Atheist's lack of belief in the existence of a creator/designer of life as we know it, from the "what's possible" in science's objective reality, and it also furthers knowledge in objective biosciences (research).

Could that be said from a faith based Creator/designer's viewpoint? Ie: would it remove the necessity of their belief in the existence of a life Creator/designer from objective reality? (More likely; it would drive that person further towards harder and more fixed beliefs, IMO).

 

[Hans Blaster]

The theory of abiogenesis makes the assumption that the chemical reactions that happen inside the cell (producing proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.) also naturally occur outside the cell.
Science doesn't operate on assumptions.
If we can't observe it happening now, as far as science goes it didn't happen.

First you'd have to define the theory of abiogenesis.

Now that I can look back (since my previous post is finished), you specifically rejected the possibility of autocatalysis in the original claim that triggered this response chain a page or so back. What is your scientific evidence that autocatalysis does not occur with proteins or nucleic acids?

 

[renniks]

First you'd have to define the theory of abiogenesis.

Now that I can look back (since my previous post is finished), you specifically rejected the possibility of autocatalysis in the original claim that triggered this response chain a page or so back. What is your scientific evidence that autocatalysis does not occur with proteins or nucleic acids?

No I claimed chemical evolution doesn't lead to abiogenesis. That's the topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I claimed chemical evolution doesn't lead to abiogenesis. That's the topic.

Do you even know what "chemical evolution" and "autocatalysis" mean in this context?

 

[Kylie]

Why do you atheists even join a Christian forum, to start trouble?

Do you think that someone who doesn't share a belief should have no interest in it? When you see a Christian who rejects evolution in a discussion about it, do you also ask them why they join discussions about evolution? Somehow, I don't think so.

Do you apply the "If you don't accept X, why participate in discussions about X" equally, or do you only use it to try to kick atheists out of discussions?

 

[Kylie]

I like to give citations every once in awhile as well.

Especially upon request.

How about you give evidence to support your claims every once in a while as well?

 

[renniks]

Do you even know what "chemical evolution" and "autocatalysis" mean in this context?

In short it means chemicals have to accidentally mix to form life without any of the ideal pre existing conditions.

• When linking amino acids to build a protein, “each amino acid must be activated to overcome an energy barrier that naturally prevents the linking up of adjacent amino acids in solution. The energy for this process comes from ATP. Then, a special enzyme called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) bonds each amino acid, in two steps, to the correct tRNA.” (Sarfati, 2014b, 33%) Furthermore, the tRNA adaptors must be detachable once the amino acid has been joined to the end of the growing protein. The ribosome moves the mRNA along like a ratchet, and energy for detachment comes from another energy-storage molecule, GTP (guanosine triphosphate), which is in turn produced by a complex and tightly integrated and regulated machine (Truman, 2007).

 

[ottawak]

That's backwards... what you need is solid evidence that abiogenesis does happen.

However weak the abiogenesis hypothesis may seem to you, in order to upset it you need evidence that something else happened instead. Otherwise the abiogenesis hypothesis remains the best explanation available.