Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Abiogenesis split from Death thread

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    379
    Amen (Given)
    84
    Amen (Received)
    175
    Quote 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 at 08:26 PM.

  2. #12
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,686
    Amen (Given)
    14071
    Amen (Received)
    5088
    Quote 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?

  3. Amen element771 amen'd this post.
  4. #13
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,279
    Amen (Given)
    945
    Amen (Received)
    643
    Quote 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 at 10:48 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.

  5. #14
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,279
    Amen (Given)
    945
    Amen (Received)
    643
    Quote 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 at 11:24 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.

  6. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    379
    Amen (Given)
    84
    Amen (Received)
    175
    Quote 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?

  7. #16
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,279
    Amen (Given)
    945
    Amen (Received)
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by element771 View Post
    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.
    I have not set an arbrtary date

    But not the knowledge of the nature of Genetics and the possibility of a hypothesis for natural origins from abiotic chemistry.


    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.
    These disagreements are more judgement as to when the meaningful hypothesis for abiogenesis began, and this disagreement is not a serious one. I place the origins in the 1960s where enough knowledge allowed serious hypothesis for abiogenesis beyond speculation of the possible links between the abiotic chemistry and RNA/DNA of primitive life. You can propose an earlier beginning and I have no problem with that, but regardless it is relatively young science, and a serious science based on objective evidence, and scientific methods of falsification, and not merely speculation.

    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?
    No, but the knowledge of the chemical nature of RNA/DNA and the possible abiotic chemistry is necessary to develop a hypothesis for natural origins of RNA/DNA beyond speculation.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-10-2017 at 06:07 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.

  8. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    379
    Amen (Given)
    84
    Amen (Received)
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I have not set an arbrtary date

    But not the knowledge of the nature of Genetics and the possibility of a hypothesis for natural origins from abiotic chemistry.
    What about the nature of genetics specifically?

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    These disagreements are more judgement as to when the meaningful hypothesis for abiogenesis began, and this disagreement is not a serious one. I place the origins in the 1960s where enough knowledge allowed serious hypothesis for abiogenesis beyond speculation of the possible links between the abiotic chemistry and RNA/DNA of primitive life. You can propose an earlier beginning and I have no problem with that, but regardless it is relatively young science, and a serious science based on objective evidence, and scientific methods of falsification, and not merely speculation.
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No, but the knowledge of the chemical nature of RNA/DNA and the possible abiotic chemistry is necessary to develop a hypothesis for natural origins of RNA/DNA beyond speculation.
    What about the chemical nature of RNA / DNA specifically? Stability? Charge?

  9. #18
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,279
    Amen (Given)
    945
    Amen (Received)
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by element771 View Post
    What about the nature of genetics specifically?

    What about the chemical nature of RNA / DNA specifically? Stability? Charge?
    Your looking for specifics of the knowledge of RNA/DNA that came with research in the 1960s. As far as I am concerned these difference of the beginnings of the hypothesis is not important, and the most important issue is fact that the hypothesis for abiogenesis is relatively young science, and a serious science based on objective evidence, and scientific methods of falsification, and not merely speculation.
    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. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    379
    Amen (Given)
    84
    Amen (Received)
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Your looking for specifics of the knowledge of RNA/DNA that came with research in the 1960s. As far as I am concerned these difference of the beginnings of the hypothesis is not important, and the most important issue is fact that the hypothesis for abiogenesis is relatively young science, and a serious science based on objective evidence, and scientific methods of falsification, and not merely speculation.
    Just because you keep repeating yourself, bolding the text, etc... doesn't make it true.

    The reason that I am asking is because I would like to understand what specific knowledge was needed to test hypotheses about abiogenesis in your opinion.

    You keep stating that it is a relatively young science without giving any details as to why you feel this way.

    What discoveries, in your opinion, were necessary?

  11. #20
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,279
    Amen (Given)
    945
    Amen (Received)
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by element771 View Post
    Just because you keep repeating yourself, bolding the text, etc... doesn't make it true.
    Obvious, not it does not.

    The reason that I am asking is because I would like to understand what specific knowledge was needed to test hypotheses about abiogenesis in your opinion.

    You keep stating that it is a relatively young science without giving any details as to why you feel this way.

    What discoveries, in your opinion, were necessary?
    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

    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.

Posting Permissions

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