Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abiogenesis split from Death thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abiogenesis split from Death thread

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    To date, I haven't seen any scientific papers referring to abiogenesis as a theory. The most they say is hypothesis.
    Source: http://www.universetoday.com/41024/abiogenesis/



    How did life on Earth arise? Scientific efforts to answer that question are called abiogenesis. More formally, abiogenesis is a theory, or set of theories, concerning how life on Earth began (but excluding panspermia).

    Note that while abiogenesis and evolution are related, they are distinct (evolution says nothing about how life began; abiogenesis says nothing about how life evolves).

    Intensive study of the Earth’s rocks has turned up lots and lots of evidence that some kinds of prokaryotes lived happily on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago (and there’re also pointers to the existence of life on Earth in the oldest rocks). So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth … and in no more than a few hundred million years.

    Because there are no sedimentary rocks older than about 3.7 billion years (and no metamorphic ones older than about 3.9 billion years), and because the oldest such rocks already contain evidence that there was life on Earth then, testing abiogenesis theories must be done by means other than geological.

    © 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.

  • #2
    The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
      The article you linked to uses "theory" in what sense? It is not a scientific article, and it links to an article that makes mention of three competing hypotheses, none of which has any hard evidence to support it. All the article can point to is plausible scenarios.

      And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.

      While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.

      And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.

      So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        The article you linked to uses "theory" in what sense? It is not a scientific article, and it links to an article that makes mention of three competing hypotheses, none of which has any hard evidence to support it. All the article can point to is plausible scenarios.

        And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.

        While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.

        And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.

        So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.
        I can provide more references, and I probably will. Yes, Abiogenesis is separated from the science of evolution, but yes there are a number of theories that propose that non-life evolved into life forms. Actually, abiogenesis is a continuum of evolution of non-life forms into the first life forms.

        more to follow . . .
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          This reference describes only one of theories concerning Abiogenesis.


          Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/



          A New Physics Theory of Life

          Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

          By: Natalie Wolchover


          Why does life exist?

          Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

          From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

          © Copyright Original Source



          https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Perhaps you should read what I posted, Tassman - or do you and I have different interpretations of what constitutes reasonable, perhaps.
            What you erroneously claimed was that “a hypothesis to be fact is a faith”. But no one is claiming that a hypothesis is fact that one must believe in.

            "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

            They’re not fact but they're much more than mere "faith" statements.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              What you erroneously claimed was that “a hypothesis to be fact is a faith”. But no one is claiming that a hypothesis is fact that one must believe in.

              "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

              They’re not fact but they're much more than mere "faith" statements.
              Merriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH
              : strong belief or trust in someone or something

              Merriam Webster: expanded explanation
              belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.



              The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.

              Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.

              Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Merriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH
                : strong belief or trust in someone or something

                Merriam Webster: expanded explanation
                belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.



                The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.

                Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.

                Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.
                No, you're misrepresenting what 'hypotheses' are in science. Abiogenesis is not based upon “faith” it is a hypothesis which is subject to testing in just the same way that the Higgs boson remained a hypothesis for 50 years before it was actually shown to exist. But no-one argued that the Higgs boson was a faith-statement; there was good reason to predict it's existence.

                Once again:

                “Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as the result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations”.

                http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  No, you're misrepresenting what 'hypotheses' are in science. Abiogenesis is not based upon “faith” it is a hypothesis which is subject to testing in just the same way that the Higgs boson remained a hypothesis for 50 years before it was actually shown to exist. But no-one argued that the Higgs boson was a faith-statement; there was good reason to predict it's existence.

                  Once again:

                  “Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as the result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations”.

                  http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
                  We agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
                  Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
                  When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    We agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
                    Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
                    When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
                    I do not think either Tassman nor I agree with you concerning your understanding of hypothesis. Your sub- definition of faith does not apply either. Tassman did not assert that a hypothesis is an established truth. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of evidence as a starting point for further investigation based on scientific methods of falsification. It is no a subjective assurance of truth. Abiogenesis is an objective evidence based hypothesis of the chemical origins of life. At present it is a young rapidly evolving science, and any judgement as to what can nor cannot be falsified is speculation especially when the agenda is theological.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
                      Why do you classify the details as being young?

                      A lot of what is speculated on has been known for quite some time. If you consider things that were learned in the 1950's to be young, then I have no objection to it being classified this way.

                      I believe that it is correct to label descriptions / idea regarding abiogenesis as hypotheses and not theories. From what I have read, there is no consensus regarding which of the competing hypotheses are more likely to be correctly describing abiogenesis as each have problems associated with them. Therefore, there is no well substantiated consensus that provides enough scientific groundwork for it to be a theory.

                      That being said...I would not say that a hypothesis is a faith based idea. It is an idea that provides a possible explanation that is testable.
                      Last edited by element771; 01-09-2017, 03:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        This reference describes only one of theories concerning Abiogenesis.


                        Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/



                        A New Physics Theory of Life

                        Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

                        By: Natalie Wolchover


                        Why does life exist?

                        Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

                        From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/
                        This is still not a theory in the scientific sense, it is speculative. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not a theory.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          This is still not a theory in the scientific sense, it is speculative. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not a theory.
                          Please note you are correct it is not a theory. The reference did not refer to it as a theory, and I do not refer to it as a theory. Some do refer to it as a theory, and yes there are a number of theories involved. I hear a strong religious agenda and bias referring to it as speculative, because it is not a theory. Sounds like the old diatribe against evolution; 'It is just a Theory.'

                          Though . . . in this case I do not object to calling it a theory, because in is commonly described this way. It does not make it any less grounded in legitimate science to be described as a hypothesis.

                          More to follow . . .
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-09-2017, 05:48 PM.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Why do you classify the details as being young?

                            A lot of what is speculated on has been known for quite some time. If you consider things that were learned in the 1950's to be young, then I have no objection to it being classified this way.

                            I believe that it is correct to label descriptions / idea regarding abiogenesis as hypotheses and not theories. From what I have read, there is no consensus regarding which of the competing hypotheses are more likely to be correctly describing abiogenesis as each have problems associated with them. Therefore, there is no well substantiated consensus that provides enough scientific groundwork for it to be a theory.

                            That being said...I would not say that a hypothesis is a faith based idea. It is an idea that provides a possible explanation that is testable.
                            I do not consider the speculation in the 1950's and earlier, as Darwin proposed, as the beginning of the science of abiogenesis any more than I consider the speculations concerning evolution over the centuries before Charles Darwin as the beginning of the science of evolution.

                            The beginning of the science of abiogenesis 'origin of life by abiotic processes' began when viable hypothesis could be made to falsify the origins of primative life and RNA/DNA genetic material from non-organic proteins by abiotic (inorganic) processes. This did not begin until we had knowledge RNA/DNA genetics, nor were there any significant research in this field before this. The Oparin-Miller proposals and experiments in the 1920's were significant at the time, but no specific hypothesis for these origins that could demonstrate the actual process were forthcoming unti recent knowledge of RNA/DNA genetics.

                            The first true abiogenesis hypothesis began here:

                            Source: http://exploringorigins.org/ribozymes.html


                            THE DISCOVERY OF RIBOZYMES

                            The central role for many proteins in a cell is to catalyze chemical reactions that are essential for the cell's survival. These proteins are known as enzymes. Until relatively recently, it was thought that proteins were the only biological molecules capable of catalysis. In the early 1980s, however, research groups led by Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech independently found that RNAs can also act as catalysts for chemical reactions. This class of catalytic RNAs are known as ribozymes, and the finding earned Altman and Cech the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

                            The ribozyme isolated by the Cech group, known as the Tetrahymena ribozyme, is shown in the box to the right. It acts to cut a longer strand of RNA into two smaller segments.

                            THE RNA WORLD HYPOTHESIS

                            The discovery of ribozymes supported a hypothesis, known as the RNA World Hypothesis, that earlier forms of life may have relied solely on RNA to store genetic information and to catalyze chemical reactions. This hypothesis was proposed independently by Carl Woese, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel in the 1960s -- decades before the discovery of ribozymes -- and soon after the double-helical structure of DNA was determined. According to the RNA World Hypothesis, life later evolved to use DNA and proteins due to RNA's relative instability and poorer catalytic properties, and gradually, ribozymes became increasingly phased out.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-09-2017, 06:24 PM.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I do not consider the speculation in the 1950's and earlier, as Darwin proposed, as the beginning of the science of abiogenesis any more than I consider the speculations concerning evolution over the centuries before Charles Darwin as the beginning of the science of evolution.

                              The beginning of the science of abiogenesis 'origin of life by abiotic processes' began when viable hypothesis could be made to falsify the origins of primative life and RNA/DNA genetic material from non-organic proteins by abiotic (inorganic) processes. This did not begin until we had knowledge RNA/DNA genetics, nor were there any significant research in this field before this. The Oparin-Miller proposals and experiments in the 1920's were significant at the time, but no specific hypothesis for these origins that could demonstrate the actual process were forthcoming unti recent knowledge of RNA/DNA genetics.

                              The first true abiogenesis hypothesis began here:

                              Source: http://exploringorigins.org/ribozymes.html


                              THE DISCOVERY OF RIBOZYMES

                              The central role for many proteins in a cell is to catalyze chemical reactions that are essential for the cell's survival. These proteins are known as enzymes. Until relatively recently, it was thought that proteins were the only biological molecules capable of catalysis. In the early 1980s, however, research groups led by Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech independently found that RNAs can also act as catalysts for chemical reactions. This class of catalytic RNAs are known as ribozymes, and the finding earned Altman and Cech the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

                              The ribozyme isolated by the Cech group, known as the Tetrahymena ribozyme, is shown in the box to the right. It acts to cut a longer strand of RNA into two smaller segments.

                              THE RNA WORLD HYPOTHESIS

                              The discovery of ribozymes supported a hypothesis, known as the RNA World Hypothesis, that earlier forms of life may have relied solely on RNA to store genetic information and to catalyze chemical reactions. This hypothesis was proposed independently by Carl Woese, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel in the 1960s -- decades before the discovery of ribozymes -- and soon after the double-helical structure of DNA was determined. According to the RNA World Hypothesis, life later evolved to use DNA and proteins due to RNA's relative instability and poorer catalytic properties, and gradually, ribozymes became increasingly phased out.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              This is demonstrably false. What do you think the Miller Urey experiment that was done in the 1950's was investigating?

                              The idea of the RNA world is a relatively new one but this is not the only idea on the block. You can't arbitrarily set a date on what you consider the first true hypothesis.

                              The Urea Miller experiments where in the 50's

                              The Structure of DNA was in the 50's

                              The central dogma of molecular biology was in the 50's.

                              The RNA world hypothesis was proposed in the 60's.

                              The finding of the ribozyme (early 80's) lent support for the RNA world hypothesis of course.

                              But it is not like we just started to RNA / DNA genetics...what ever the hell that means.

                              Are you referring to the structures of RNA / DNA, their properties, how they function in the cell as far as genetic information?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              14 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X