Thread: Abiogenesis A Realistic Scenario?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Would you? I wouldn't because it is simply proprogating a chemical reaction which vaires according to it's substrate so no I don't consider it alive.

And yet, 'life' varies according to the substrate, moves from areas of little resource to that of plentiful resource. It creates more of itself and generally tends to spread and consume resource. By the very definitions you gave me, fire is a form of life. Are viruses living as well?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Yeah and I even pointed out counter rebuttals to this as well in other threads. You haven't toppled anything, and you definately haven't toppled any refuted information that myself or Ne-yo has presented against you regarding the RNA world hypothesis.

O RLY? If your idea of refuting something is by simply asserting that it is false and offering nothing to support your own hypothesis, then yeah... you've 'refuted'. But unfortunately for you, that hasn't been the case.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I don't know what's it's doing there, I didn't put it there you can check the site of reference if you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Whats the evidence that conclusive to displaying a naturalistic means of non-living matter creating living matter?

For the directed one, who created (or... seeded) the aliens? Super-Aliens? Same problems...

Naturalistic explanations would go more for along the lines of comets seeding the Earth with quite a bit of the water and also the chemicals needed for the conditions for Abiogenesis to occur. Certain amino acids have been shown to polymerise on exposure to certain minerals[1][2], as well as what Urey-Miller experiments have shown.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

So you mean to tell me you have no reason at all to even believe that Aliens could've put us here? Which means that you probably do not believe in Aliens right?

No reason to believe in such an idea either, due to the fact that space-travel is not an easy thing to do at all. Any alien race traversing through the vast distances in space is not really going to just stop by, sprinkle a few bacteria and whatever here and there, before buggering back off. I think such an Alien race would rather plunder the planet for resources for the next leg of the journey, or whatever. Of course, this is speculation, but since you've offered nothing to prove your assertion of "Aliens did it", I don't have to provide evidence for this particular bit.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

yeah and you keep telling yourself that it's not the case and see how far that gets you.

If it gets me a fat pay check and good standard of living, then hell yes. But wait... religion pays too... I mean... look at the Pope. He's fucking loaded. It would be nice to have that sort of money so easily, but I just don't have the heart to con people out of it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Weeks ago I used the same image, just without the letters, in the 'information theory' thread. (aka the "maybe-if-we-ignore-the-critical-and-obvious-flaw-in-our-argument-for-a-thousand-pages-then-it-will-just-go-away" thread)

My layers will soon be knocking on your door.

You sound like a little kid. "I used that same image" Whaaaaa!! Whatever dude!

Mine looks better and gets directly to the point. DO NOT STEAL IT!

Originally Posted by skysaw

Lock request is in. I pray to Giant Potato it will go through soon.

Lock request? LOL, What for? Why do you want this thread locked?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

And you are a fool.



That article you submitted clearly says that they "CONVERT" not reproduce you freaking moron. Also is the action of a prion protein in transforming another "normal" protein into a prion protein, any different to an antibody forcing a peptide into a particular configuration in it's binding site, or a catalyst enzyme binding to, and forcing conversion of it's substrate? Is not the bindee the exact same protein in terms of primary sequence, or closely related variants? It's simply catalysis not reproduction you freaking idiot!

It's a form of reproduction you moron.

The protein takes another protein, and turns it into another of itself. That's reproduction.

Get a clue, dude.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And yet, 'life' varies according to the substrate, moves from areas of little resource to that of plentiful resource. It creates more of itself and generally tends to spread and consume resource. By the very definitions you gave me, fire is a form of life. Are viruses living as well?

Technically Viruses YES, Virions NO.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

O RLY? If your idea of refuting something is by simply asserting that it is false and offering nothing to support your own hypothesis, then yeah... you've 'refuted'. But unfortunately for you, that hasn't been the case.

Well if that's not the case then you not asserting information that holds truth to Abiogenesis is a fallacy within itself. Once again compadree' the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

For the directed one, who created (or... seeded) the aliens? Super-Aliens? Same problems...

Naturalistic explanations would go more for along the lines of comets seeding the Earth with quite a bit of the water and also the chemicals needed for the conditions for Abiogenesis to occur. Certain amino acids have been shown to polymerise on exposure to certain minerals[1][2], as well as what Urey-Miller experiments have shown.

You mean the same fallacious Atmospheric Expirement that Urey proposed on the world as being true? He faked you out bluefinger. Do you not feel cheated??? Don't you deserve some kind of explanation? Or are you just going to let it ride because you have that much "FAITH" in his work?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No reason to believe in such an idea either, due to the fact that space-travel is not an easy thing to do at all. Any alien race traversing through the vast distances in space is not really going to just stop by, sprinkle a few bacteria and whatever here and there, before buggering back off. I think such an Alien race would rather plunder the planet for resources for the next leg of the journey, or whatever. Of course, this is speculation, but since you've offered nothing to prove your assertion of "Aliens did it", I don't have to provide evidence for this particular bit.

But you rather believe that non-living matter just woke up and said "Hey guys look we're alive for no reason at all, now let's get to work because we have a lot to build on." Is that not as far-fetched? Or does yours work better because you have more "Faith" in Urey-Miller than Aliens.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If it gets me a fat pay check and good standard of living, then hell yes. But wait... religion pays too... I mean... look at the Pope. He's fucking loaded. It would be nice to have that sort of money so easily, but I just don't have the heart to con people out of it.

Now there I can agree, Look at the Pope and other religious fundalmentalist like Benny Hinn missleading people and teaching their own ways and yet they got the Phat Mansions and the Yachts and the Private jets, because a certain group of people were/are stupid enough to support them. It cost money to go to Vegas you know that? The shit isn't cheap ya know.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

It's a form of reproduction you moron.

The protein takes another protein, and turns it into another of itself. That's reproduction.

Get a clue, dude.

That's not reproduction that's conversion you freaking retard! It's a "change." That's all it is.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Well if that's not the case then you not asserting information that holds truth to Abiogenesis is a fallacy within itself. Once again compadree' the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you.

I provided the evidence, you have yet to provide yours bub.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

You mean the same fallacious Atmospheric Expirement that Urey proposed on the world as being true? He faked you out bluefinger. Do you not feel cheated??? Don't you deserve some kind of explanation? Or are you just going to let it ride because you have that much "FAITH" in his work?

Faked out? Citation needed.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

But you rather believe that non-living matter just woke up and said "Hey guys look we're alive for no reason at all, now let's get to work because we have a lot to build on." Is that not as far-fetched? Or does yours work better because you have more "Faith" in Urey-Miller than Aliens.

Strawman argument, right there

Also, with the Aliens idea: "Who created the Aliens?"

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Now there I can agree, Look at the Pope and other religious fundalmentalist like Benny Hinn missleading people and teaching their own ways and yet they got the Phat Mansions and the Yachts and the Private jets, because a certain group of people were/are stupid enough to support them. It cost money to go to Vegas you know that? The shit isn't cheap ya know.

Ironically, the Pope declared wealth to be a sin. Guess that fucks over the whole Vatican, eh?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

You sound like a little kid. "I used that same image" Whaaaaa!! Whatever dude!

Mine looks better and gets directly to the point. [B]DO NOT STEAL IT![/B

No. A plain picture without text has more subtlety to it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No. A plain picture without text has more subtlety to it.

I guess for some people, the subtlety is lost on them, hence the need for text. I think it was the case with SNW.

That's not reproduction that's conversion you freaking retard! It's a "change." That's all it is.

You're fucking retarded.

Everything is a change.

One that is caused by A and makes X into A is called reproduction.

Fucking hell.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I provided the evidence, you have yet to provide yours bub.

Provided evidence? You actually provided a solid conclusion to non-living matter creating living matter? You may want to run that one down to the scientific community because it seems they are still trying to figure that one out. Come again, becuase you've provided JACK!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Faked out? Citation needed.

I know darn well your mind couldn't possibly be that clouded. Was the primordial atmophere model fallaious or not? Did he or did he not chose gases on purpose in his model because they were very convenient for the formation of amino acids? Did evolutionists accept this as being true and later it was revealed otherwise?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Ironically, the Pope declared wealth to be a sin. Guess that fucks over the whole Vatican, eh?

I'll be honest with you, I can care less about the Pope. *sigh*

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No. A plain picture without text has more subtlety to it.

Yeah keep telling yourself that. Words always seem to hold more power for some reason.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I guess for some people, the subtlety is lost on them, hence the need for text. I think it was the case with SNW.

Don't get bent out of shape because you were caught up evading a question and I called you out on it with a picture that included a TEXT discription for your better understanding.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You're fucking retarded.

Everything is a change.

One that is caused by A and makes X into A is called reproduction.

Fucking hell.

Prions force normally folded proteins into a prion type. Producing an offspring from a already pre-existing kind doesn’t fall under classical biological reproduction you idiot!

Therefore you get A that “changes” X into AX dummy! All it did was change X, it didn’t make a new B did it? You simple-minded troll!

You are an idiot.

Officially.

Prions ar not alive thus their form of reproduction doesn't "have" to "fit" biological reproduction.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Provided evidence? You actually provided a solid conclusion to non-living matter creating living matter? You may want to run that one down to the scientific community because it seems they are still trying to figure that one out. Come again, becuase you've provided JACK!

Evidence supporting my argument, not solid conclusion. You however, have provided nothing.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I know darn well your mind couldn't possibly be that clouded. Was the primordial atmophere model fallaious or not? Did he or did he not chose gases on purpose in his model because they were very convenient for the formation of amino acids? Did evolutionists accept this as being true and later it was revealed otherwise?

How is it fallacious? Various other experiments have found similar results, so the fact that third parties are having consistent results, is quite telling. Because, you know, Scientists like to check up on each other's work and so on. It is how progress is made.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Don't get bent out of shape because you were caught up evading a question and I called you out on it with a picture that included a TEXT discription for your better understanding.

Evading a queation? I've been giving the answers from the start. You just ignored them.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Prions force normally folded proteins into a prion type. Producing an offspring from a already pre-existing kind doesn’t fall under classical biological reproduction you idiot!

Therefore you get A that “changes” X into AX dummy! All it did was change X, it didn’t make a new B did it? You simple-minded troll!

Prions still are still accumulating within a system, therefore are replicating. In this case, they rely on existing proteins to fuel the replication of further prions. They may not be alive, but replication is still occurring before material can be considered 'animate'.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Evidence supporting my argument, not solid conclusion. You however, have provided nothing.

Once again the burden isn't on me. Does the evidence provide a solid and reasonable conclusion? It's already known that Abiogensis and all of it's hypothesis have not been scientifically proven. There is no conclusion and yet you still have faith that one of these hypothesis may be true in the future. You have faith in the Unknown would you not agree?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

How is it fallacious? Various other experiments have found similar results, so the fact that third parties are having consistent results, is quite telling. Because, you know, Scientists like to check up on each other's work and so on. It is how progress is made.

It was fallacious the moment he tried to pass it off as accurate. He added things as a convenience, not as for the acutality of the enviorment.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Prions still are still accumulating within a system, therefore are replicating. In this case, they rely on existing proteins to fuel the replication of further prions. They may not be alive, but replication is still occurring before material can be considered 'animate'.

Does this model of "reproduction" fit the criteria of biology? That's the real question.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Once again the burden isn't on me. Does the evidence provide a solid and reasonable conclusion? It's already known that Abiogensis and all of it's hypothesis have not been scientifically proven. There is no conclusion and yet you still have faith that one of these hypothesis may be true in the future. You have faith in the Unknown would you not agree?

What are you on SNW?

I met the burden of proof with the citation I provided. You are committing a fallacy here by setting the burden of proof to be incredibly high, purposely so that I can never meet it. You, however, have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your own hypothesis. All you do is make assertion after assertion as if just you saying it is somehow true. Come on, do better than this.

Abiogenesis is a work-in-progress, but unlike the picture you are trying to paint, we have already made in-roads towards the solution. We aren't there yet, but we know we are on the right track from the evidence so far that has been collected. Can the same be even said for Intelligent Design?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

It was fallacious the moment he tried to pass it off as accurate. He added things as a convenience, not as for the acutality of the enviorment.

And what are you basing this analysis on? Your own personal opinion or a proper validated study? Either way, citation needed.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Does this model of "reproduction" fit the criteria of biology? That's the real question.

Note: I used the word replicate, because Prions, like viruses, require a host to replicate. Why? Because reproduction holds the connotation of sexual reproduction, of which you are trying to use as a semantical point for your argument, hence my wording.

Prions replicate in the presence of suitable proteins, just as viruses replicate when they invade a host cell. As long as both accumulate within their preferred system/environment. In the case of prions, it shows that replication can occur before something is declared 'animate'.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What are you on SNW?

I met the burden of proof with the citation I provided. You are committing a fallacy here by setting the burden of proof to be incredibly high, purposely so that I can never meet it. You, however, have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your own hypothesis. All you do is make assertion after assertion as if just you saying it is somehow true. Come on, do better than this.

I didn't set the burden of proof. That's just the way it is. Of course you cannot meet it because the conclusion isn't there right? So would you not agree that you have faith in a hypothesis that hasn't presented any turth to it nor has it been presented as a fact.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Abiogenesis is a work-in-progress, but unlike the picture you are trying to paint, we have already made in-roads towards the solution. We aren't there yet, but we know we are on the right track from the evidence so far that has been collected. Can the same be even said for Intelligent Design?

I'm not trying to paint any particular picture, Abiogenesis painted that picture when it was thought of. Maybe the same cannot be stated with Intelligent Design on the other hand I don't have a problem with having faith in the unknown. What about you?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And what are you basing this analysis on? Your own personal opinion or a proper validated study? Either way, citation needed.

You act as if you've never heard this. Do you think I'm making this up? If so then you need to do more research on Miller's work. Is this really new information to you, seriously?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Note: I used the word replicate, because Prions, like viruses, require a host to replicate. Why? Because reproduction holds the connotation of sexual reproduction, of which you are trying to use as a semantical point for your argument, hence my wording.

Prions replicate in the presence of suitable proteins, just as viruses replicate when they invade a host cell. As long as both accumulate within their preferred system/environment. In the case of prions, it shows that replication can occur before something is declared 'animate'.

So do crystals replicate in the same fashion? If so would crystals posses the same criteria as something considered being alive?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I didn't set the burden of proof. That's just the way it is. Of course you cannot meet it because the conclusion isn't there right? So would you not agree that you have faith in a hypothesis that hasn't presented any turth to it nor has it been presented as a fact.

You don't come up with conclusions first when investigating a problem. You are asking for a conclusion that isn't there, and then saying it is a leap of faith. I am saying that out of all the possibilities, the valid ones are currently fall within Abiogenesis, as they have evidence going for them. You are ignoring the evidence presented in order to keep to your argument.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I'm not trying to paint any particular picture, Abiogenesis painted that picture when it was thought of. Maybe the same cannot be stated with Intelligent Design on the other hand I don't have a problem with having faith in the unknown. What about you?

This has to be the dodgiest thing I have ever seen. Faith in the unknown? Right... explains so much:

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

You act as if you've never heard this. Do you think I'm making this up? If so then you need to do more research on Miller's work. Is this really new information to you, seriously?

Umm, I know there are criticisms, but follow-up work on the field have yielded more evidence and shown some interesting phenomena that lend veracity to the Miller experiments. So what do you have to show for your side?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

So do crystals replicate in the same fashion? If so would crystals posses the same criteria as something considered being alive?

I never said alive, I said replication occurs perfectly well outside of the definition of life. Again, self-replicating molecules are not limited to RNA and DNA: Reference

Originally Posted by Serkat

You must address this point. "Life" is, like most words, an arbitrary concept with no objective meaning or relevance. Objective relevance is only found within the natural physicalist sciences chemistry and physics. The distinction between life and non-life is pragmatically useful, but arbitrary.

You ask "How can life come from non-life?"
I ask "How can water come from non-water?"

Same difference.

2H+O -> H2O

Non-water -> Water

Umm?

edit: Uhh nevermind, I see that this has already been addressed.

But it is an unsupported idea that H2 + O will make water.

All experiments and data reqaurding it is false! It can't happen!

I think we're reaching the point where SNW has had his fix of patronizing & dodging and phase-shifts out of the forum for several days.

Ok listen, what Shadow is trying to do is get us to admit faith. He wants us to say "Yes, we have a 'blind' belief that someday, abiogenesis will be proven."

I am, however, not afraid to admit this 'belief'. It's not like it makes me religious. It just means I find abiogenesis more likely to be true than ID. I know that someday, more supporting evidence for abiogenesis will pop up, and it will then become a confirmed and proven theory. It's just a matter of time. That's my faith, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

But it is an unsupported idea that H2 + O will make water.

All experiments and data reqaurding it is false! It can't happen!

I don't get that Seis, how is it unsupported when it's been happening since this universe has been in existence. Water vapor appears all throughout space, well at least the space that we have so-far observed nevertheless it doesn't seem as uncommon as life originating from non-life.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Ok listen, what Shadow is trying to do is get us to admit faith. He wants us to say "Yes, we have a 'blind' belief that someday, abiogenesis will be proven."

I am, however, not afraid to admit this 'belief'. It's not like it makes me religious. It just means I find abiogenesis more likely to be true than ID. I know that someday, more supporting evidence for abiogenesis will pop up, and it will then become a confirmed and proven theory. It's just a matter of time. That's my faith, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

You are absolutely right! It doesn't make you religious and I'm just happy to see that someone wasn't afraid to assert the fact that there is a kind of belief that plays along with this. it doesn't mean it's religious, as religion involves so much more than just faith. I think beliefs and having faith in something is just and aspect of human nature. When I was a child, just like millions of other children you uncounsciously produce faith in your parents, the faith in not knowing whether they would do everything they can to give you all the neccessities to help you grow and learn and prepare yourself for what the world has to offer. Maybe it's not the best example but faith and believing in no knowning something goes a lot further than just religion.

I don't get that Seis, how is it unsupported when it's been happening since this universe has been in existence. Water vapor appears all throughout space, well at least the space that we have so-far observed nevertheless it doesn't seem as uncommon as life originating from non-life.

You are denying that a combination of chemicals that exist cannot form.

That's just retarded.