Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: Advances in the science of abiogenesis

  1. #21
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,029
    Amen (Given)
    9018
    Amen (Received)
    5554
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Again . . .

    here are two roughly methods: one. 'retro engineering,' they are experimenting on what reactions can be engineered to produce a given result, and when natural environments and conditions are created to determine what results can be achieved naturally. The present research deals more with the specific steps and problems in the abiogenesis process.
    Yeah... that doesn't read any differently this way.


  2. #22
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,029
    Amen (Given)
    9018
    Amen (Received)
    5554
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    There's a major problem in practical abiogenesis research experiments in that people are effectively trying to duplicate what could happen in the world's oceans in millions of years, and they've got a bathtub and a month.

    So if they optimise environmental conditions and molecular concentrations and ratios in order to favour the reactions they're studying, that's understandable because there's literally no way on earth for them to duplicate the actual conditions. As long as they make it clear in their publications what they did and what the consequences are for how relevant their research is to actual possible history, it's not an issue.

    Oh, and while they may be intelligently designing their experiments to maximise success/usefulness, that's not the same as Intelligent Design.
    Actually, introducing the attempt is the biggest problem of all - intellect is not a random process.

    But I was merely observing the obvious - I still don't think they replicated the original results (my actual question) and in the first read, this didn't seem nearly as impressive to me as it is to Shuny. I wasn't intending to debate the thing - I'm still trying to digest it.

    On that last point, true, it's not the same thing - but it's also not the same thing as random chance. It's a lot closer to the former than the latter - which is why the first article better supports ID rather than RC. I already conceded it can be used so don't yell but to prove RC, you've (general) got to get a model that doesn't involve intellect - and yeah, it's an incredibly high bar. Higher still when you look at the probabilities, but intellect invalidates random chance if it's present in the final model.

  3. #23
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,245
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Yeah... that doesn't read any differently this way.

    That is the reality as science researches the different possible ways abiogenesis took place. There is nothing in the research article that describes retro-engineering that would indicate it refers to Intelligent Dsign.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #24
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,245
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Actually, introducing the attempt is the biggest problem of all - intellect is not a random process.
    Science does not consider 'intellect a random process. Puzzling remark needs claification.

    On that last point, true, it's not the same thing - but it's also not the same thing as random chance. It's a lot closer to the former than the latter - which is why the first article better supports ID rather than RC. I already conceded it can be used so don't yell but to prove RC, you've (general) got to get a model that doesn't involve intellect - and yeah, it's an incredibly high bar. Higher still when you look at the probabilities, but intellect invalidates random chance if it's present in the final model.
    The model that does not involve 'intellect' involves the 'Laws of Nature and natural processes' that falsified based on objective verifiable evidence.

    . . .the discoveries of new evidence and research supports the natural origins and evolution of life.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #25
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,245
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Source: http://astrobiology.com/2019/09/interstellar-formamide-nh2cho-a-key-prebiotic-precursor.html



    Interstellar Formamide (NH2CHO), A Key Prebiotic Precursor

    Formamide (NH2CHO) has been identified as a potential precursor of a wide variety of organic compounds essential to life, and many biochemical studies propose it likely played a crucial role in the context of the origin of life on our planet.

    The detection of formamide in comets, which are believed to have --at least partially-- inherited their current chemical composition during the birth of the Solar System, raises the question whether a non-negligible amount of formamide may have been exogenously delivered onto a very young Earth about four billion years ago. A crucial part of the effort to answer this question involves searching for formamide in regions where stars and planets are forming today in our Galaxy, as this can shed light on its formation, survival, and chemical re-processing along the different evolutionary phases leading to a star and planetary system like our own.

    The present review primarily addresses the chemistry of formamide in the interstellar medium, from the point of view of (i) astronomical observations, (ii) experiments, and (iii) theoretical calculations. While focusing on just one molecule, this review also more generally reflects the importance of joining efforts across multiple scientific disciplines in order to make progress in the highly interdisciplinary science of astrochemistry.

    Ana López-Sepulcre, Nadia Balucani, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Claudio Codella, Francois Dulieu, Patrice Theulé
    (Submitted on 25 Sep 2019)
    Comments: Review, 5 figures
    Subjects: Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)
    DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00154
    Cite as: arXiv:1909.11770 [astro-ph.SR] (or arXiv:1909.11770v1 [astro-ph.SR] for this version)
    Submission history
    From: Ana Lopez-Sepulcre
    [v1] Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:59:32 UTC (1,250 KB)
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11770
    Astrochemistry, Astrobiology

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  6. #26
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,029
    Amen (Given)
    9018
    Amen (Received)
    5554
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Science does not consider 'intellect a random process. Puzzling remark needs claification.



    The model that does not involve 'intellect' involves the 'Laws of Nature and natural processes' that falsified based on objective verifiable evidence.

    . . .the discoveries of new evidence and research supports the natural origins and evolution of life.
    The problem is that the model is designed, which introduces intellect into the modelling. It's a skew that's devilishly difficult to control for.

    Also, science doesn't think - quit anthropomorthizing, it's silly.

  7. #27
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,245
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    The problem is that the model is designed, which introduces intellect into the modelling. It's a skew that's devilishly difficult to control for.

    Also, science doesn't think - quit anthropomorthizing, it's silly.
    It is your anthropomorphizing that is silly. Nothing in the research articles and the references indicates any sort of designing from any source other than natural origins and Laws of Nature. The model is not designed as in Intelligent Design.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  8. #28
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,029
    Amen (Given)
    9018
    Amen (Received)
    5554
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It is your anthropomorphizing that is silly. Nothing in the research articles and the references indicates any sort of designing from any source other than natural origins and Laws of Nature. The model is not designed as in Intelligent Design.
    Come on, Shuny, you know better. The mere act of modelling introduces intellect - because the model will reflect programming choices. Only people make those choices so the is no anthropormorphizing on my part.

  9. #29
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,245
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Come on, Shuny, you know better. The mere act of modelling introduces intellect - because the model will reflect programming choices. Only people make those choices so the is no anthropormorphizing on my part.
    Come on Teallaura, you know better, scientists in any discipline do no consider 'design' issues in the manner the bogus scientists of the Discovery Institute consider 'design.'

    Your bogus argument is based on a religious agenda, and science does not have any religious agenda one way or the other.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #30
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,356
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Come on, Shuny, you know better. The mere act of modelling introduces intellect - because the model will reflect programming choices. Only people make those choices so the is no anthropormorphizing on my part.
    Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about situations where the conditions chosen for the modeling are based on those planetary scientists have concluded are likely to be present on the early Earth? That's really quite constrained for the researchers, and doesn't give them a lot of choice in terms of what they can set up in their model reactions — there's not much "intellect" involved, to use your terminology. But it does depend on the scientific conclusions of other people (although those are also quite constrained, obviously).
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •