Progress in origin of life research - RNA world

[Paprika]

Nevertheless, they do continue to make progress. If this bothers you both

Not at all. It just amuses me to see naturalists brandishing such unlikely scenarios as much more than they are. Also, very often they implicitly (or explicitly in shunya's case) invoke Time of the Gaps, which is hilariously ironical.

But I do think they continue to make progress towards a possible understanding, don't you?

All they've found is that success in the first few steps of paths towards abiogenesis require highly unlikely favourable conditions.

Indeed, they progress towards the understanding that it wasn't possible, but they're taking a awful long time and lots of money to do so.

[rwatts]

Not at all. It just amuses me to see naturalists brandishing such unlikely scenarios as much more than they are. Also, very often they implicitly (or explicitly in shunya's case) invoke Time of the Gaps, which is hilariously ironical.

A few hundred years ago, this kind of chemistry was considered impossible, now they can show possible pathways by which the important chemicals can have arisen naturally, and you don't think this is progress?

Here's a layperson's writeup which explains what was achieved in the first paper I mentioned:-

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...id-precursors/


If the above is not progress, then what is your idea of progress, when it comes to offering an explanation for the origin of life? How probable is the scenario you propose?

[Paprika]

Things might go better if you don't assume that every skeptic of the naturalistic myth is an scientifically illiterate fundamentalist. Hence you should read carefully and ascribe to the conversation partner no more than he has said.

If the above is not progress, then what is your idea of progress, when it comes to offering an explanation for the origin of life? How probable is the scenario you propose?

I've not said that no progress was made; what I have said is that it is not very significant.

I've read the paper. The scenario describes highly favourable conditions for formation of the building blocks. Given these ideal conditions, formation of the macromolecules from the building blocks in any significant yield in the presence of all the byproducts still remains very difficult.

It is not the theist that has problems with OOL science; it is the naturalist who has to have faith that abiogenesis happened despite intensive research over many decades having demonstrated how improbable it is.

[shunyadragon]

Not at all. It just amuses me to see naturalists brandishing such unlikely scenarios as much more than they are. Also, very often they implicitly (or explicitly in shunya's case) invoke Time of the Gaps, which is hilariously ironical.

The problem is your underlying religious agenda, which is hilariously ironical. It is a fact that there was billions of years in time for the necessary chemistry to come together to form the first pre-life and life forms to begin the evolution. To avoid your hilarious ironical agenda you will have to give a references scientific explanation for your laughable 'Time of Gaps,' because there are no gaps in reality. As far as your problem of the amount of amino acids from meteorites, aside form this NOT being the necessary scenario, there does not take much at all for life to begin given the proper environment, which has been demonstrated to existed during this time.

All they've found is that success in the first few steps of paths towards abiogenesis require highly unlikely favourable conditions.

Again assertions without references. References please for your baseless cynical sarcasm. The ocean vents have been around ever sense there were oceans and considered a favorable environment for the beginnings of life.

Indeed, they progress towards the understanding that it wasn't possible, but they're taking a awful long time and lots of money to do so.

More baseless cynical accusations without referrences based on a archaic religious agenda.

[Paprika]

A rant from shunyadragon, as expected. I have some spare time.

The problem is your underlying religious agenda, which is hilariously ironical. It is a fact that there was billions of years in time for the necessary chemistry to come together to form the first pre-life and life forms to begin the evolution. To avoid your hilarious ironical agenda you will have to give a references scientific explanation for your laughable 'Time of Gaps,' because there are no gaps in reality.

You're the one appealing to Time of the Gaps: "Probability is not a problem when you have billions of years for it to happen, and whole globe to work on it."

there does not take much at all for life to begin given the proper environment, which has been demonstrated to existed during this time.

Assertions without references.

As far as your problem of the amount of amino acids from meteorites, aside form this NOT being the necessary scenario, there does not take much at all for life to begin given the proper environment, which has been demonstrated to existed during this time.

The objection I mentioned that the organic material from meteorites would have been insufficient was directly quoted from a scientist specialising in OOL science. Take it up with him.

Again assertions without references. References please for your baseless cynical sarcasm.

I point you to the papers linked above, for example, where the experiments were performed in very highly specific conditions.

The ocean vents have been around ever sense there were oceans and considered a favorable environment for the beginnings of life.

Assertion without reference. Yes, ocean vents have been considered one of the more likely sites for abiogenesis but has any scenario been demonstrated plausible?

More baseless cynical accusations without referrences based on a archaic religious agenda.

Whether they'll make any significant progress is debatable, but pray tell, what's baseless about the claims that a lot of time and money is expended on OOL research?

[shunyadragon]

A rant from shunyadragon, as expected. I have some spare time.


You're the one appealing to Time of the Gaps: "Probability is not a problem when you have billions of years for it to happen, and whole globe to work on it."


Assertions without references.


The objection I mentioned that the organic material from meteorites would have been insufficient was directly quoted from a scientist specialising in OOL science. Take it up with him.


I point you to the papers linked above, for example, where the experiments were performed in very highly specific conditions.


Assertion without reference. Yes, ocean vents have been considered one of the more likely sites for abiogenesis but has any scenario been demonstrated plausible?


Whether they'll make any significant progress is debatable, but pray tell, what's baseless about the claims that a lot of time and money is expended on OOL research?

The spare time does not help your case. Scientific references please. So far in this thread you have made assertions without references. Air ball!!!

Waiting for scientific references . . .

[Paprika]

The spare time does not help your case. Scientific references please. So far in this thread you have made assertions without references. Air ball!!!

In the same post where you ranted about 'assertions without references' you made the same.

Waiting for scientific references . . .

As am I

Meanwhile, I've pointed you to the papers cited here in this thread by rwatts.

[rwatts]

I've not said that no progress was made; what I have said is that it is not very significant

Well if a few hundred years ago, they thought it was impossible for even a simple organic molecule to form naturally, and now they can demonstrate this kind of thing, then what would you class as "significant" progress?

It is not the theist that has problems with OOL science;

You appear to have problems with it. And for the second time, what scenario are you advocating, how does it work in practice, and how likely is it?

[shunyadragon]

In the same post where you ranted about 'assertions without references' you made the same.


As am I

Meanwhile, I've pointed you to the papers cited here in this thread by rwatts.

No, nothing to support your baseless assertions. Still waiting . . .

[Paprika]

Well if a few hundred years ago, they thought it was impossible for even a simple organic molecule to form naturally, and now they can demonstrate this kind of thing, then what would you class as "significant" progress?

'A few hundred years ago' is a red herring, and horribly imprecise. What we can say is that there hasn't been much significant advance from the groundbreaking Miller-Urey experiment more than 6 decades ago.

What I have noted is that these papers do not show much advance in the science much at all; ie that they only demonstrate that a few steps work for highly intelligently designed conditions. In general the historical scenarios proposed are merely guesses; given even very tailored conditions they can't even demonstrate yet the synthesis of a cell from simple starting materials.

You appear to have problems with it.

Not at all. I merely choose to be appropriately skeptical, as indeed the discipline of science warrants.

And for the second time, what scenario are you advocating, how does it work in practice, and how likely is it?

Nice try.

But what I believe actually happened is completely independent of the relevance and truth of these papers studied, which is the topic at hand.

[rwatts]

'A few hundred years ago' is a red herring, ...

Not really. Have you never heard about how the synthesis of urea was something of a shock because it was felt that the synthesis of organic chemicals, even simple ones, was beyond natural process? That was a few hundred years ago, well 1828 to be exact.

... and horribly imprecise.

A bit like your probablitly "estimates"?

What we can say is that there hasn't been much significant advance from the groundbreaking Miller-Urey experiment more than 6 decades ago.

"Significant" is horribly imprecise. What do you mean by "there hasn't been much significant advance"? For example, consider this from the layperson's writeup of the experiment mentioned in the OP:-

"Together, these three ingredients can not only produce ribonucleotides, which are the basic building blocks for RNA, but more importantly, they can also produce amino acids and lipids at the same time, which helps solve the conundrum outlined by Service above"

Why don't you think it to be a significant advance? What about a teeny-weeny one?

But what I believe actually happened is completely independent of the relevance and truth of these papers studied, which is the topic at hand.

So you have nothing?

If what you have on offer is far less probable than a natural origin, then a natural origin is far more likely, right?

[Paprika]

Not really. Have you never heard about how the synthesis of urea was something of a shock because it was felt that the synthesis of organic chemicals, even simple ones, was beyond natural process? That was a few hundred years ago.

I have not heard of that. But since then? It's been more than six decades since Miller-Urey. What has happened since then?

A bit like your probablitly "estimates"?

The amount of different types of scenarios that OOL research throws up (these three papers alone cover cyanide catalysis in a specific environment, meteorite catalysis, DNA ligation) show that the scientists still have little if any definite idea about what actually happened, which is why they are exploring in many many different directions. The pathways suggested here require highly constrained conditions and only cover a small part of the large reaction cycle which would be needed for life to begin.

Hence as far as current science is concerned abiogenesis remains highly improbable. But your faith is admirable.

"Significant" is horribly imprecise. What do you mean by "there hasn't been much significant advance"?

Miller-Urey showed that certain 'building blocks' could be produced in certain conditions. Six decades later there is no consensus on the conditions under which life started (see meteorite vs cyanide vs all the rest), let alone a demonstration that a certain realistic pathway could produce life, only tentative guesses on 'this small part of the pathway might have happened under these conditions', which is basically Miller-Urey and the three papers.

Something like self-assembling RNA-like molecules (just to give you some help) is quite interesting and somwhat significant (please read carefully that I didn't say "no significant advance" but "much significant advance"). However

Proponents of the traditional RNA world hypothesis say that moving from an RNA precursor like Hud’s to RNA itself still represents an incredible challenge, possibly as daunting as making RNA from scratch. If these molecules were successful enough to launch the origins of life, where are they now?

“To me, the proto-RNA idea raises more questions than it answers,” said John Sutherland, a chemist at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, who nonetheless described Hud’s work as elegant and well done. “If it’s too difficult for RNA to assemble chemically, how can a primitive biology invent RNA?”...

“The chemistry of making RNA is so difficult that it’s hard to imagine that you could have a one-pot reaction, where molecules come together and spontaneously make this complex molecule,” Hud said.

This should bolster my claims that abiogenesis is still very improbable under current scientific knowledge.

So you have nothing?

I may, or I may not. It is hardly relevant to the discussion, but I suppose you need the red herring to distract from the points I've made.

[rwatts]

I may, or I may not. It is hardly relevant to the discussion, but I suppose you need the red herring to distract from the points I've made.

Of course its relevant.

If natural abiogenesis is highly unlikely but nevertheless much more likely than supernatural abiogenesis then it becomes much more plausible in comparison.

So stop being coy, and give me your number.

Something like self-assembling RNA-like molecules (just to give you some help) is quite interesting and somwhat significant (please read carefully that I didn't say "no significant advance" but "much significant advance").

So what's the difference between "quite interesting and somewhat significant" and "there hasn't been much significant advance" and no significant advance?

[Paprika]

Of course its relevant.

If natural abiogenesis is highly unlikely but nevertheless much more likely than supernatural abiogenesis then it becomes much more plausible in comparison.

The comparison isn't relevant at all; the discussion is about the OOL research cited here and in general.

I suppose you must keep trying in an attempt to disqualify or distract from my points ("He refuses to answer my irrelevant questions!!!") but I'm afraid you'll get nothing.

So what's the difference between "quite interesting and somewhat significant" and "there hasn't been much significant advance" and no significant advance?

Isn't it clear? If it's just another paper saying that "under certain highly controlled specific conditions building blocks can formed" this isn't terribly significant since such papers are numerous. Something like self-assembling RNA-like molecules was novel, addressing a much less-explored part of the proposed RNA world reaction pathway and thus more significant.

[rwatts]

but I'm afraid you'll get nothing.

So why didn't you say so as opposed to writing:-

"I may, or I may not. It is hardly relevant to the discussion, but I suppose you need the red herring to distract from the points I've made."?

I'd have thought "nature did it" to be more plausible if its probability is well beyond that of "ID did it".

And at least the "nature did it" grow bothers to try to work it out, be those researchers theist (e.g. Christian) or non theist (e.g. atheist). What are your mob attempting to do with respect to this model you are very coy about?

Isn't it clear?

Not really.

Do you think this kind of understanding was possible back in the 1950s:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67593114001264?

This explanation you have, but which you are very coy about - do you have anything to match, either theoretical or experimental?