Thoughts on Abiogenesis

[Bradskii]

I think we're done. I've nothing to add. So unless you have...thanks for the input.

 

[SelfSim]

I haven't made a claim. Other than I agree with the statement the guy made that some means of replication would be required. Dna is what we use. Alien life might use something different.

Let's get this much straight, 'alien life' can't 'use' something if its own base chemistry/physical environment doesn't allow for its existence in the first place .. can it?

That phrase: 'life uses' is the biggest misnomer in Astrobiology. The only reason that term works on Earth is because evolved earth-biochemistry has adapted, producing base deletions/substitutions which happen to perform the same/similar necessary chemical functions, in the highly complex inter-related chains of evolved cellular organic chemical processes ... and/or other similar template elements. Eg: our molecular template based replication, is resilient within well defined tolerances.

What that might be is above my pay grade.

This has nothing to do with 'pay grades' .. especially if you're putting forward the points you've been arguing for pages now, which happen to rely on the very same 'pay grade' principles .. except you aren't following the objective empirical method.

Someone else could perhaps chip in. Something crystaline? But whatever it was, we wouldn't be looking specifically for dna. Dna was not one of the characteristics for life. Replication was. We'd be looking for a process that something might be using as a means to replicate information.

Our template based replication, by means of genetically encoded information contained within the nucleotide basis of the DNA/RNA molecules here on Earth, produces a high fidelity type of replication. The end product is remarkably consistent, within known tolerances and produces highly conserved sequences, which go on to translate into common protein types across a particular group we categorise as 'Earth-life'.
That particular type of replication process, in the natural Earth environment, is also a function which is uniquely associated with what we refer to as DNA/RNA molecules.

Whether such a type of high fidelity replication is universally ubiquitous, or is limited to our own Earthly geo-chemical physical environment, is completely unknown .. there is no data to base any such calls upon.

 

[SelfSim]

And may this be the summary statement.

There is no physics or chemistry formula, which predicts that earth-life's definitions will be the inevitable outcomes elsewhere, to anywhere near the precision the Earth-life definition is attuned to, (which is Earth's evolved environment).

Earth-life is widely regarded (ie: objectively evidenced) as being poised on the edge of criticality in its complexity modelled conception. This means it is, and has been in the past, sensitive to certain external environmental, stacked contingent influences, which includes the hypothesised abiogenesis phase.
We don't know the universal set of those influences yet .. but exploring other solar system bodies (for eg) will contribute data to the picture of how broad those tolerances might be within our immediate astronomical vicinity.

 

[SelfSim]

I think we're done. I've nothing to add. So unless you have...thanks for the input.

Your argument evidently ran out of puff.

I suggest you reconsider what I said waay back, about how objectively valueless the process of coming from highly contextualised, yet assumed 'true' definitions, (ie: the definition of 'life' applies everywhere), really is, when there is zero useful empirical data from beyond the specific context (of Earth) for extrapolating to the generalised case of universality (ie: beyond Earth).

Expanding science's knowledgebase might embrace testing the predictions of hypotheses, (and it always carries the knowledge used to come up with them), but it also has to approach its data gathering exercises into the unknown, with a dispassionate regard for such hypotheses.

 

[Astrid]

There is no physics or chemistry formula, which predicts that earth-life's definitions will be the inevitable outcomes elsewhere, to anywhere near the precision the Earth-life definition is attuned to, (which is Earth's evolved environment).

Earth-life is widely regarded (ie: objectively evidenced) as being poised on the edge of criticality in its complexity modelled conception. This means it is, and has been in the past, sensitive to certain external environmental, stacked contingent influences, which includes the hypothesised abiogenesis phase.
We don't know the universal set of those influences yet .. but exploring other solar system bodies (for eg) will contribute data to the picture of how broad those tolerances might be within our immediate astronomical vicinity.

That is quite a combination of overstating the obvious,
contesting things nobody thinks, claims of facts not in
evidence, and deepity.

Hypertrophy of vocabulism being the sycophant of obscurantism
we suggest you rewrite in common prose.

Or better, don't.

As noted, this thread has died.
Or if you like, is progressing like a barge thro' a
cornfield.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypertrophy of vocabulism being the sycophant of obscurantism we suggest you rewrite in common prose.

Sure.

Science can take a hike.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your argument evidently ran out of puff.

I suggest you reconsider what I said waay back, about how objectively valueless the process of coming from highly contextualised, yet assumed 'true' definitions, (ie: the definition of 'life' applies everywhere), really is, when there is zero useful empirical data from beyond the specific context (of Earth) for extrapolating to the generalised case of universality (ie: beyond Earth).

Expanding science's knowledgebase might embrace testing the predictions of hypotheses, (and it always carries the knowledge used to come up with them), but it also has to approach its data gathering exercises into the unknown, with a dispassionate regard for such hypotheses.

You were wrong when you said much the same thing eighteen months ago and I consequently put you on Ignore. You are still wrong. I give you credit for the single-minded display of devotion to your wrongness and I promise to try harder not to hit the "Show Ignored Content" button in future.

 

[Phred]

Sure.

Science can take a hike.

If you meant that you wouldn't be posting on the INTERNET using a COMPUTER and all the other sciency things you do every day. You're a hypocrite every minute of every day. Your Bible is printed using scientific principles. Don't like it? Move into a cave and hunt your meat using a rock. The only reason you're as old as you are is science. You've been given a gift. We should demand you give something back. Even it if is only some basic respect.

 

[SelfSim]

That is quite a combination of overstating the obvious,

There are many obvious things, for which many people have overly developed blind spots.

.. contesting things nobody thinks,

So, as an example of my trying to find out specifically what you're referring to there (and your apparent lack of demonstration of inquisitiveness about where I'm actually coming from):

Do you think what we mean by 'life', inevitably exists on bodies other than Earth?
If so, then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?
If not, then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?
If 'maybe' then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?

(I ask because this is what I'm contesting .. does 'nobody' around here think any of that?)

claims of facts not in evidence, and deepity.

Please be specific .. which facts do you think are not in evidence?

Hypertrophy of vocabulism being the sycophant of obscurantism
we suggest you rewrite in common prose.

I am not speaking in prose .. I am speaking from a scientific viewpoint, which is well founded in science. Prose isn't.

Or better, don't.

Better for whom? (Certainly not science).

Or if you like, is progressing like a barge thro' a
cornfield.

.. A common misconceived claim .. typically dished up so as to not expose a personal lack of understanding of a given topic.
Many people enjoy abusing minorities and hide behind others as a tactic for not exposing their own lack of knowledge of how science actually works ..(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Sure.

Science can take a hike.

Your personal opinions of science aside, at least you (perhaps) recognise the basis of where I'm coming from(?)

(I'm happy to admit I might well be totally wrong about that, mind you).

 

[SelfSim]

You were wrong when you said much the same thing eighteen months ago and I consequently put you on Ignore. You are still wrong. I give you credit for the single-minded display of devotion to your wrongness and I promise to try harder not to hit the "Show Ignored Content" button in future.

.. (and we get to the poster who bears perpetual grudges .. groan)..

Explain exactly what you think is 'wrong' (and why).

Oh .. and your attempts to weaponise your preferential usage of the 'Ignore Posts' cop-out function, will not work with me ..

 

[AV1611VET]

Your personal opinions of science aside, at least you (perhaps) recognise the basis of where I'm coming from(?)

(I'm happy to admit I might well be totally wrong about that, mind you).

I'm sorry, SelfSim, I was responding to Estrid.

What's your post number, and I'll have a look at it.

 

[Astrid]

There are many obvious things, for which many people have overly developed blind spots.
So, as an example of my trying to find out specifically what you're referring to there (and your apparent lack of demonstration of inquisitiveness about where I'm actually coming from):

Do you think what we mean by 'life', inevitably exists on bodies other than Earth?
If so, then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?
If not, then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?
If 'maybe' then what is the specific physical context you are drawing that conclusion from?

(I ask because this is what I'm contesting .. does 'nobody' around here think any of that?)
Please be specific .. which facts do you think are not in evidence?
I am not speaking in prose .. I am speaking from a scientific viewpoint, which is well founded in science. Prose isn't.
Better for whom? (Certainly not science).
.. A common misconceived claim .. typically dished up so as to not expose a personal lack of understanding of a given topic.
Many people enjoy abusing minorities and hide behind others as a tactic for not exposing their own lack of knowledge of how science actually works ..(?)

Abusing minorities...

 

[Bradskii]

Hypertrophy of vocabulism being the sycophant of obscurantism....

Me like.

 

[DamianWarS]

Thoughts on Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the process whereby life first came into existence from non-life. Along with the beginning of the Universe (aka The Big Bang) and evolution, it’s one of the three processes which make up the scientific version of what fundamentalist Christians refer to as ‘Origins’.

While evolution and the Big Bang are considered to be well-established scientific Theories, abiogenesis still has the status of a Hypothesis since science has yet to flesh out the detail of how it occurred.

One of the problems with accepting abiogenesis is its’ counter intuitive nature.

How could life have come from non-life?​

I would argue that not only is abiogenesis a reality, it’s something which we see around us, in a different form, every day.

Think of a seed from a tree, preferably a big tree. When that seed comes in contact with water and the right soil minerals it sprouts and begins to grow. In order to grow it takes in sunlight, carbon dioxide, water and soil minerals and chemically converts them to tree stuff. As the tree grows the tree’s cells continue the process until, eventually the tree may be millions of times more massive than the original seed.

The sunlight, water, CO2 and minerals used by the tree to build itself are all forms of non-life. Through a natural process, non-life (sunlight, water, minerals, CO2) has been converted to a life form (the tree). Even the original seed is itself constructed, by its parent tree, from non-living materials.

While science cannot (yet) duplicate the process of tree growth it’s well understood and we have yet to find any part of the process which can’t be understood through physics or organic chemistry or other related sciences.


If a tree, or any other living thing, is built from natural processes acting on non-living materials, then it’s entirely feasible for the first form(s) of life to have originated from natural processes acting on non-living materials. The initial materials may differ, as will the process, but the event need only occur once to kick start life and the lifeform need not be anywhere near as complex as a tree.

Abiogenesis is not just the process where life first came into existence. The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living.


OB

isn't this just another way to phrase the chicken and egg problem? the seed comes from the tree, which makes the seed, which makes the tree, etc... it's an established cycle and the seed is a product of existing life that in turn produces life. the mystery is not where the seed came from (we know it comes from the tree) or where the tree comes from (we know it comes from the seed) the mystery is how the cycle got started which your seed analogy seems to not address.

 

[Astrid]

isn't this just another way to phrase the chicken and egg problem? the seed comes from the tree, which makes the seed, which makes the tree, etc... it's an established cycle and the seed is a product of existing life that in turn produces life. the mystery is not where the seed came from (we know it comes from the tree) or where the tree comes from (we know it comes from the seed) the mystery is how the cycle got started which your seed analogy seems to not address.

It's true though that "non living" air and water are combined into
living things.

They start small, and somehow the substance added to
the organism becomes alive. A tiny seed becomes a redwood.

Isn't that a vast mystery, how a tree takes air and water and
makes it alive?

 

[Occams Barber]

isn't this just another way to phrase the chicken and egg problem? the seed comes from the tree, which makes the seed, which makes the tree, etc... it's an established cycle and the seed is a product of existing life that in turn produces life. the mystery is not where the seed came from (we know it comes from the tree) or where the tree comes from (we know it comes from the seed) the mystery is how the cycle got started which your seed analogy seems to not address.

You seem to have missed the whole point of the OP which is to demonstrate the concept of animate matter arising from inanimate matter. To use your words, the seed 'produces life'.

The tree employs a different process to abiogenesis but it demonstrates that inanimate matter can be converted into the stuff of a living tree using a complex chemical process.

If you go back through the post you'll see some discussion which touches on your chicken/egg problem. You might also like to consider the absence of a clear definition of life.

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

Hypertrophy of vocabulism being the sycophant of obscurantism

Me like.

A technical writer whom I worked with had a plaque above his desk that read "Eschew Obfuscation". I loved it.

 

[Bradskii]

A technical writer whom I worked with had a plaque above his desk that read "Eschew Obfuscation". I loved it.

That reminded me of the story about Neils Bohr who was said to have a horseshoe nailed to the wall above his desk to 'bring him luck'. Someone asked him why one of the most empirically minded scientists on the planet would have such a superstitious talisman. He said 'apparently it works whether you believe in it or not'.

No way is that true. But I so much want it to be. It could have been a cross and got the same response from a lot of people.

 

[Astrid]

A technical writer whom I worked with had a plaque above his desk that read "Eschew Obfuscation". I loved it.

Feynman commented on a tangled web of tech jarg constituting
a paragraph randomly chosen in a psychology text book.
After puzzling it out he determined that it meant "people like to read".

The paragraph that includes such impenetrable obfuscs as
."...edge of criticality in its complexity modelled conception...
stacked contingent influences..." appears to just mean
"Organisms respond to their environment"

We know people like to read and that organisms respond.

Likewise we know when someone is trying to bedazzle
with faux erudition.