James Tour gets to debate origin-of-life chemist!

[TheLurch]

I think he's oversimplifying here, "some scientists believe that RNA emerged directly from these reactive chemicals, nudged along by dynamic forces in the environment." (Source, emphasis mine). That, followed by a simple diagram would be an oversimplification.

So, you're saying that you think doing all of geochemistry in one panel is fine, and formation of nucleotides in one panel isn't.

You have unusual standards.

[TheLurch]

I'm going to be honest, I'm not even sure what people are arguing about at this point.

Lee's changed his argument so many times that it's difficult for me to keep track.

But the nearly-consistent theme of all of this is him thinking that the fact that a leading scientist made some reasonable simplifications once means that science is wrong.

[lee_merrill]

Tend to? Heat and UV how much? Heat and UV in and of itself does not destroy life. If you propose this you need to specifically define the heat and UV. Life exists right at the extreme heat of the mid ocean ridge fumerols.

Well, they use heat (boiling water to disinfect it) and UV light as disinfectants.

You need to cite Szostak specifically in text and put the diagram in context of his research.

I have done both, cited Szostak (see my reply to TheLurch) and quoted research which amplifies the diagram to 10 steps.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So, you're saying that you think doing all of geochemistry in one panel is fine, and formation of nucleotides in one panel isn't.

Not if you also say "some scientists believe that RNA emerged directly from these reactive chemicals, nudged along by dynamic forces in the environment." (Szostak)

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, they use heat (boiling water to disinfect it) and UV light as disinfectants.

The water does not necessarily have ti be be boiling, and life does survive at temperatures above boiling water, and water can filter UV light.

I have done both, cited Szostak (see my reply to TheLurch) and quoted research which amplifies the diagram to 10 steps.

Blessings,
Lee

Only selectively to justify your agenda and The Lurch has responded

[TheLurch]

Not if you also say "some scientists believe that RNA emerged directly from these reactive chemicals, nudged along by dynamic forces in the environment." (Szostak)

Again, if we have a chemical reaction like the combustion of octane, would you object to saying "it burns directly to water and CO2"? If not, then it's a double standard.

Well, they use heat (boiling water to disinfect it) and UV light as disinfectants.

Is the heat involved in this reaction enough to boil water? Do you even understand how UV acts as a disinfectant? If so, how would that be relevant to the conditions here?

If you can't answer those questions right this moment - before you had realized that you might want to look them up - then you should be making statements like this.

[lee_merrill]

Again, if we have a chemical reaction like the combustion of octane, would you object to saying "it burns directly to water and CO2"? If not, then it's a double standard.

I would object to someone saying water and CO2 emerge directly from octane and oxygen.

Is the heat involved in this reaction enough to boil water? Do you even understand how UV acts as a disinfectant? If so, how would that be relevant to the conditions here?

That heat and UV radiation can be antagonistic to biochemistry, is all I'm saying here. That doesn't require knowledge of how they do so.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The water does not necessarily have ti be be boiling, and life does survive at temperatures above boiling water, and water can filter UV light.

Those creatures that survive temperatures above boiling water do not disprove the point that heat (and UV light) are used as disinfectants. Yet both heat and UV light are required in the process that Szostak's reference outlines, so we would need to be assured that excess heat and UV light would not interfere with the steps in the process where they are not required.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

That heat and UV radiation can be antagonistic to biochemistry, is all I'm saying here. That doesn't require knowledge of how they do so.

But you have no idea whether that's at all relevant to this chemical reaction (or reaction series, since that's the only way you can apparently conceive of it). So you might as well be discussing whether Rick Astley is antagonistic to biochemistry for all it's value here.

[shunyadragon]

Those creatures that survive temperatures above boiling water do not disprove the point that heat (and UV light) are used as disinfectants. Yet both heat and UV light are required in the process that Szostak's reference outlines, so we would need to be assured that excess heat and UV light would not interfere with the steps in the process where they are not required.

Blessings,
Lee

Water filters UV, and temperatures of water vary enough that it does not necessarily kill. Your part of this argument does not make any sense.

[lee_merrill]

Alrighty, I'll let you all have the last word, signing off (again!)...

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Alrighty, I'll let you all have the last word, signing off (again!)...

Blessings,
Lee

Is tomorrow 'Gound Hog Day?'

[Seeker]

Is tomorrow 'Gound Hog Day?'

[Terraceth]

But you have no idea whether that's at all relevant to this chemical reaction (or reaction series, since that's the only way you can apparently conceive of it). So you might as well be discussing whether Rick Astley is antagonistic to biochemistry for all it's value here.

The answer to that is obvious.

[shunyadragon]

From this article, which has a link to the YouTube debate with origin-of-life chemist Lee Cronin. A couple of quotes from James Tour:

"There’s things that look like they’re living, but there’s no life there."

"I’m fine with naturalistic explanations."

In short he'd be happy if origin-of-life researchers came up with a demonstration, he's just insisting that we have a very long way to go, and the target (life in a cell) keeps moving farther away, the problem is demonstrably more and more difficult.

Blessings,
Lee

Actually there is an interesting scientific perspective on this statement that
"There’s things that look like they’re living, but there’s no life there."

Viruses have been considered to have evolved in the earliest stages of the origin (abiogenesis) and evolution of life, and the question has been controversial whether they are in reality life or not life. They reproduce and have genetic material, but are not considered life forms by many biologists, because they do not meet the strict definition of living living organisms.

I as some other scientists consider viruses part of the continuum from non-life to life in abiogenesis, and the early stages of evolution. The question arises whe other living organisms were not evolved yet; What did viruses live off of. Viruses do attack other viruses.