Advances in the science of abiogenesis

[Teallaura]

Directed engineering is not Intelligent Design. It just means they were able to do it in the lab through directed engineering,

Which doesn't help the case for undirected evolution at all - but does support Intelligent Design.

Good question.

This is interesting more recent related research:

Source: https://elifesciences.org/articles/35255

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35255.001

© Copyright Original Source

So, basically, no, they can't replicate the result of creating self-replicating RNA and, if I'm reading this correctly, actually are showing that the problem is even more difficult than they thought originally.

Let me reread it later to make sure I get it.

[shunyadragon]

Which doesn't help the case for undirected evolution at all - but does support Intelligent Design.


So, basically, no, they can't replicate the result of creating self-replicating RNA and, if I'm reading this correctly, actually are showing that the problem is even more difficult than they thought originally.

This has nothing to do what can and cannot do. There are two roughly methods: one 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.

Let me reread it later to make sure I get it.

Please do . . .

[Teallaura]

This has nothing to do what can and cannot do. There are two roughly methods: one 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.

The first is basically retro engineering - that can't answer abiogenesis except via Intelligent Design - so I presume they are using it as a stepping stone. Figure out the processes, then worry about whether or not nature can do them.

The second has massive problems and doesn't seem related to the papers you cited in this thread so I'll just leave it be.

Please do . . .

Chemistry - I'm reading CHEMISTRY!!!


Get back to you later...

[shunyadragon]

The first is basically retro engineering - that can't answer abiogenesis except via Intelligent Design - so I presume they are using it as a stepping stone. Figure out the processes, then worry about whether or not nature can do them.

The second has massive problems and doesn't seem related to the papers you cited in this thread so I'll just leave it be.


Chemistry - I'm reading CHEMISTRY!!!


Get back to you later...

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.

[Roy]

The first is basically retro engineering - that can't answer abiogenesis except via Intelligent Design - so I presume they are using it as a stepping stone. Figure out the processes, then worry about whether or not nature can do them.

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://astrobiology.com/2019/09/interstellar-formamide-nh2cho-a-key-prebiotic-precursor.html

Interstellar Formamide (NH2CHO), A Key Prebiotic Precursorhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11770
Astrochemistry, Astrobiology

© Copyright Original Source

[Teallaura]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[TheLurch]

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.