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

  • #16
    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, 01:07 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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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?

      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.
      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?

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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?

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Obvious, not it does not.
              Then why do you keep doing it?

              You keep showing an article about the discovery of ribozymes. This does nothing to answer my question.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

              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

              Again, this does not answer my question.

              What specific discoveries, in your opinion, were needed?

              Until you provide specifics, your suggestion that this is a young field is arbitrary.
              Last edited by element771; 01-11-2017, 08:17 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by element771 View Post
                Then why do you keep doing it?

                You keep showing an article about the discovery of ribozymes. This does nothing to answer my question.



                Again, this does not answer my question.

                What specific discoveries, in your opinion, were needed?

                Until you provide specifics, your suggestion that this is a young field is arbitrary.

                The RNA World Hypothesis, which is the foundation of all further research on abiogenesis, was dependent on the discovery of ribozymes, and the knowledge of the double helical structure of DNA and the nature of RNA.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  The RNA World Hypothesis, which is the foundation of all further research on abiogenesis, was dependent on the discovery of ribozymes, and the knowledge of the double helical structure of DNA and the nature of RNA.
                  No it wasn't. It was a hypothesis before ribozymes were discovered as is indicated in your own source. Ribozymes supported this hypothesis but that has nothing to do with forming the hypothesis which occurred in the 1960s...again, this is indicated in your own source.

                  And you keep using generic words...what do you mean by the "nature of RNA"?

                  Are you implying that the RNA World Hypothesis is the only hypothesis regarding abiogenesis? That is what your post suggests...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by element771 View Post
                    No it wasn't. It was a hypothesis before ribozymes were discovered as is indicated in your own source. Ribozymes supported this hypothesis but that has nothing to do with forming the hypothesis which occurred in the 1960s...again, this is indicated in your own source.

                    And you keep using generic words...what do you mean by the "nature of RNA"?

                    Are you implying that the RNA World Hypothesis is the only hypothesis regarding abiogenesis? That is what your post suggests...
                    Actually yes, all present research since the 196Os is based on variations of this hypothesis.

                    What specific hypothesis existed prior to the RNA World Hypothesis, and based on what evidence?
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by element771 View Post
                      No it wasn't. It was a hypothesis before ribozymes were discovered as is indicated in your own source. Ribozymes supported this hypothesis but that has nothing to do with forming the hypothesis which occurred in the 1960s...again, this is indicated in your own source.

                      And you keep using generic words...what do you mean by the "nature of RNA"?
                      What hypothesis? Be specific, and based on what evidence. General conjecture and speculation of origins (abiotic chemicals>biotic life) that do not represent a working hypothesis for research and falsification.

                      Are you implying that the RNA World Hypothesis is the only hypothesis regarding abiogenesis? That is what your post suggests...
                      It is the foundation of later research and hypothesis concerning abiogenesis. I do not know of any hypothesis that is not based on this fundamental hypothesis.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-11-2017, 11:37 AM.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Actually yes, all present research since the 196Os is based on variations of this hypothesis.
                        No it isn't...

                        The fact that it has to distinguish itself as the RNA World shows that one school of thought is that there was a "DNA World".

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        What specific hypothesis existed prior to the RNA World Hypothesis, and based on what evidence?
                        Shuny...

                        A hypothesis does not need evidence verifying it to exist. It is based on existing evidence but doesn't need evidence supporting it to be a hypothesis.

                        There are many credible hypotheses that exist for abiogenesis that have strengths and weaknesses. The existence of the ribozyme is a strength of the RNA world hypothesis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by element771 View Post
                          No it isn't...

                          The fact that it has to distinguish itself as the RNA World shows that one school of thought is that there was a "DNA World".



                          Shuny...

                          A hypothesis does not need evidence verifying it to exist. It is based on existing evidence but doesn't need evidence supporting it to be a hypothesis.

                          There are many credible hypotheses that exist for abiogenesis that have strengths and weaknesses. The existence of the ribozyme is a strength of the RNA world hypothesis.
                          Not answered. I do not believe there were coherent hypothesis prior to 1960 other than the simply; abiota chemicals + energy>biotic life.

                          A hypothesis needs to be based on more than guesses in the dark, speculation and conjecture.

                          All the research since I have been able to locate is dependent on the knowledge of RNA and/or DNA, and/or ribozymes. Without this knowledge a coherent hypothesis cannot be tested. Different mechanisms and environments are the subject of the research, such mid-ocean spreading zones and in hot springs in a no Oxygen atmosphere. Some suggest the catalyst for formation of RNA was a mineral structure like iron minerals.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-11-2017, 02:43 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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Not answered.
                            DNA was the first building block rather than RNA. Another one was amino acids coming together to form rudimentary proteins.

                            How is this not answering your question?

                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            All the research since I have been able to locate is dependent on the knowledge of RNA and/or DNA, and/or ribozymes. Without this knowledge a coherent hypothesis cannot be tested.
                            What knowledge?

                            You keep saying general things with no specifics. Try and be specific...

                            What knowledge regarding RNA and / or DNA?

                            Please feel free to say "I don't know" because it is clear that you don't. I gave you specific things that we knew about DNA and RNA in the 60's. You have given nothing.
                            Last edited by element771; 01-11-2017, 03:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by element771 View Post
                              DNA was the first building block rather than RNA.
                              Some propose RNA as the first building block like iron minerals such as the following:

                              Source: https://nai.nasa.gov/articles/2016/3/9/lifes-building-blocks-form-in-replicated-deep-sea-vents/


                              Chimney-like mineral structures on the seafloor could have helped create the RNA molecules that gave rise to life on Earth and hold promise to the emergence of life on distant planets.

                              Scientists think Earth was born roughly 4.54 billion years ago. Life on Earth may be nearly that old with recent findings suggesting that life might have emerged only about 440 million years after the planet formed.

                              However, it remains a mystery how life might have first arisen. A major component of life now is DNA, a molecule that stores the genetic data that codes for proteins, including enzymes that can speed up chemical reactions. However, DNA requires proteins in order to form, and proteins need DNA to form, raising the chicken-and-egg question of how protein and DNA could have formed without each other.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Whether RNA or DNA was the first result of abiogenesis a knowledge of the RNA and/or DNA chemistry and structure is required for coherent hypotheis.

                              Another one was amino acids coming together to form rudimentary proteins.
                              How is this not answering your question?
                              This early conjecture and speculation did not result in a working hypothesis. You will need to be more specific to be meaningful.

                              What knowledge?

                              You keep saying general things with no specifics. Try and be specific...

                              What knowledge regarding RNA and / or DNA?
                              The knowledge of the chemical structure of RNA and/or DNA.

                              The RNA World Hypothesis, which is the foundation of all further research on abiogenesis, was dependent on the discovery of ribozymes, and the knowledge of the double helical structure of DNA and the nature of RNA.

                              Please feel free to say "I don't know" because it is clear that you don't. I gave you specific things that we knew about DNA and RNA in the 60's. You have given nothing.[/QUOTE]
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Whether RNA or DNA was the first result of abiogenesis a knowledge of the RNA and/or DNA chemistry and structure is required for coherent hypotheis.
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The knowledge of the chemical structure of RNA and/or DNA.
                                Done in the 50's.

                                The ribosyme is not necessary for an RNA world hypothesis, it just supports it.

                                So we had structures of DNA and RNA in the 50s and, by your own account, this is what was needed for a coherent hypothesis. The Miller Urey experiment that was designed to see if the building blocks could be formed in the primordial soup...also in the 50's.

                                Yet, abiogenesis field is young.

                                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