On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 22:07:13 -0400, Dale <***@dalekelly.org> wrote:
Why are you posting this unsolicited and of-topic stupidity here,
imbecile?
Why do so many pig-ignorant morons imagine they can attack the exact
equivalent of not believing in pixies, by lying about and
misrepresenting objective scientific research that is accepted by the
educated, including educated theists?
Post by Daleabiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
Because conditions are totally different than they were four billion
years ago, imbecile.
The kind of extremely primitive first life that has been produced in
labs, would not survive today.
The first life was anaerobic. It released oxygen as a by-product of
its metabolism. Oxygen is extremely reactive, and as enough was
released over a long time that there was nothing left for it to react
with, it poisoned the single celled life forms that produced it, in
the first great extinction. Which was also the origin of the free
oxygen in the athmosphere which most modern life requires.
You would not have oxygen-breathing life without the free oxygen
released by the earliest life.
Post by Dalebiogenesis is observed in nature, life from life
And?
That would be MODERN life from MODERN life.
The earliest life would not survive today. For starters, it was
anaerobic and there is now too much oxygen in the environment. If it
somehow survived that, it would be eaten by more modern life that is
the result of three billion years of eat or be eaten, competitive
struggle to survive.
In other words the environmental pressures then and now are
completely different.
We are the descendents of life which survived the first great
extinction, ie it _wasn't_ poisoned by the oxygen it and everything
else released
Post by Daleeven if an experimenter made life from non-life, the experimenter, the
first causal step, is life, so it is biogenesis, life from life
No, moron.
In the 1950s and 1960s, extremely simple proto-cells were formed in
the lab at the end of a progression from naturally occurring compounds
to amino acids, then proteins, then proto-cells which metabolised,
responded to environmental stimuli and reproduced.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
I've given you this link several times previously, when you have
repeated what has long since ceased to be an honest mistake and has
now taken on the mantle of a lie.
Over subsequent generations they even evolved (gasp, the e-word)
nucleic acids they didn't originally have.
No intelligence was involved, because nobody was trying to create
life.
It was the "What happens if we do this?" kind of science, and the
proto-cells were an unexpected result.
The researcher was a protein chemist, working on abiotic protein
formation.
Post by DaleI have heard the following debated
1) life consists of non-life materials
2) biogenesis does not fit with broader explanations like the big bang
Idiot. It is nothing to do with the big bang. The necessary elements
weren't even formed until second generation stars were around or even
went supernova.
Post by Daleas for (1), this might be true for plants, but for conscious life the
debate of dualism remains, moreso the causal path is not proven, just
because the parts are there doesn't imply causality
Idiot.
Post by Daleas for (2), there is no empirical "theory of everything" that is
testable
So what?
Physicists aren't looking for the origins of life. That is
biochemistry.
But whether or not you can admit it, at one point in time there was no
life - and at another, later one there was.
So there was the transition from non-life to life that is labeled
abiogenesis.
And this is what is being researched.
It sticks in your throat, that everything that has been discovered
about it is perfectly natural and does not require any intelligence -
doesn't it?
Post by DaleI am not proposing a "God(s) of the gaps" explanation, what I am
saying is that we have ample evidence of biogenesis, eternal
panspermia could be a possibility
Which just puts things back a level.
The basic building blocks have been observed under a wide variety of
conditions, and have been observed to form in the lab several
different ways, not just per Miller and Urey's original experiments.
Sidney Fox and his team used heat and silica as a catalyst - which is
where the current best explanation of undersea thermal vents
originated.
But given that this happened on Earth, duplicating early terrestrial
conditions, there is no reason to assume it had to come here from
space.
Here's a cut'n'paste from an earlier response...
I was hunting for something more Anne Drool's level and I found
this....
http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/biology/cells/proteinoid.htm
The article says they were not alive, even though they satisfy the
textbook definition of life (metabolism, reproduction, self
organisation and response to environmental stimuli).
The article also says that in order to come alive, they had to combine
with RNA or DNA to make living cells.
That is IMO academic, because it is the transition between non-life
and life. The bridge between non-living and living matter. Asking at
which point this happens is like asking when yellow becomes green in
the visible spectrum.
But in Fox's experiments, they evolved primitive nucleic acids over
subsequent generations.
This is the transition from non-life to life,
Were the protocells alive only after they evolved these? Even though
they were already there and the nucleic acids evolved in them?
An experiment with oil and water,,,
http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/biology/cells/doing/proteinoid.htm
The next step to living things: cells
http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/biology/cells/cells.htm
Karen Carr breaks with Fox and Harada here, because the latter had
nucleic acids evolving _inside_ their proto cells.
She also thinks the Amino acids came from space. While they have been
seen there, they have also been formed under terrestrial conditions in
the lab. So they form in a wide variety of different situations.
And given that they form on Earth as well as in space, Ockham's
razor would suggest that life formed from terrestrially formed amino
acids.
I tend to side with Fox and Haruda over nucleic acids evolving inside
the proto-cells. I think this is more likely, because once they had
formed, it went from a single environment in which the amino acids and
proteins had appeared (call it a big lab), into millions of smaller
environments or labs, in which different reactions could occur.
The important thing is the cell wall, however primitive. This allowed
small molecules to pass in and out (nutrients and waste product) to
react with the large molecule(s) inside, which were too big to pass
through them so they stayed inside.
Hence each protocell had its own potentially different reactions.
Natural selection sorts out the successful from the unsuccessful.
Dale won't accept any of this, of course, because it involves
the e-word.
Another cut'n'paste from an earlier response, but this one requires
the eighth grade reading skills Dale doesn't have...
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418
Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell
Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu
Abstract
Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].
The proven serial liar has been given this many times but never
addressed it.
Part of the problem would seem to be that these morons refuse to
accept that the earliest life was extremely simple and evolved from
there. They expect abiogenesis research to come up with fully formed
modern life because they imagine their religion's god did.
Because they reject evolution per se, they cannot get their minds
around forward evolution from the extremely simple.
So cognitive dissonance makes this vanish as if it had never been
provided.