I’m done begging you for the information you advertised multiple times. Good bye sir.
2 Likes
Please explain your usage of facilitate vs. create.
Yes, we can’t do “magic” as some would phrase it. The hurdles to abiogenesis are beyond most people’s comprehension, the probabilities are insane the purity of the materials needed in order for critical reactions to take place are sometimes beyond the best laboratory grade preparation, far beyond what can be expected in nature.
Fantasy, daydreaming. Life does come only from life - this is a well established law. Most people who believe in magic like you have no idea whatsoever of the immense scale of the problem.
In the context of my reply, I use facilitate to express the production of life from already living matter. I use create to express the production of it from non-living matter.
So, you’re saying, then, that we can make a new life but have to use specific materials?
No, I said what I said:
That’s how I’m expressing myself.
Again:
- Set A (sperms and eggs) facilitate
- Set B (various atoms*) create
Different sets of stuff, when jammed together, require different verbs. Now do I have it?
*atoms, of course, are the ingredients in sperms and eggs
3 Likes
I think you mean we only currently observe that, it’s yet another of those god of the gaps polemics. We don’t know that life has never come from inorganic material. We do know life exists, we do know inorganic material exists, we do not know, nor do we have any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.
Occam’s razor…
1 Like
Ipso facto you’re saying it can’t have come from a supernatural source then?
2 Likes
Wait a minute you said:
That would negate a supernatural source, obviously.
1 Like
The law of gravity is also well established. It however, doesn’t perfectly describe Mercury’s orbit.
1 Like
Really? The Kalam is all you have? 1. All cells that begin to exist come from cells as the cause of their beginning to exist. · 2. Cells began to exist. · 3. Therefore, the cells began to exist. That’s about as circular as an argument gets, and it says nothing at all regarding where cells came from. On the other hand we do have scientific inquiry into the origin of cells… But then you wouldn’t be interested in that.
2 Likes
Old_man_shouts_at_clAtheist
Old man shouts, said: “"Gooal’!! Oh, no the score has been disallowed, team god have removed the goalposts and set them up in the next field over…”
Thank science for revealing how its more complex than we think and moving the goalposts. And you have in your hands Eigen’s Paradox.
2 Likes
Oh look, the mythology fanboy has resurrected the tiresome Pasteur Canard …
The Pasteur canard.
We have had several people erecting this canard here, and it usually takes the form of the erection of the statement “life does not come from non-life”, usually with a badly cited reference to the work of Louis Pasteur. This particular piece of duplicitous apologetics, apart from being duplicitous, is also fatuous. The reason being that Louis Pasteur erected his “Law of Biogenesis” specifically for the purpose of refuting the mediaeval notion of spontaneous generation, a ridiculous notion which claimed that fully formed multicellular eukaryote organisms arose directly from dust or some similar inanimate medium. First, the modern theory of abiogenesis did not exist when Pasteur erected this law; second, the modern theory of abiogenesis does not postulate the sort of nonsense that abounded in mediaeval times (and which, incidentally, was accepted by supernaturalists in that era); and third, as a methodologically rigorous empiricist, Pasteur would wholeheartedly accept the large quantity of evidence provided by modern abiogenesis researchers if he were still alive.
The idea that the origin of life is grounded in chemistry isn’t “magic”, despite your tiresome and predictable attempt to misrepresent this idea thus. Indeed, life IS chemistry writ large - millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions [b]stop[/i], you die.
Indeed, this is how poisons work - by interfering with or shutting down critical metabolic reactions. For example, cyanide compounds exert their lethal influence by irreverisbly binding to cytochrome C oxidase enyzmes in mitochiondria, stopping them from transferring oxygen to the ATP synthesis pathway. So effective is cyanide at performing this function, that death follows in about three minutes if you consume, say, 50 grams of potassium cyanide.
Likewise, it’s precisely because life is based upon chemistry, that pharmaceuticals work. Everything from antibiotics, which act to interfere fatally with bacterial metabolism, through painkillers (which bind to COX2 enzymes or opioid receptors to exert their influence), to the various dopamine treatments that are therapeutic agents for Parkinson’s Disease, operate via well-defined chemistry. An interesting example is Loperamide, which is an opioid that isn’t absorbed through the gut, but which makes its way to the large intestine and rectum, where it binds to opioid receptors that control defecation, and thus acts as a means of treating diarrhoea in combination with other agents that deal with salmonella or amoebic dysentery (the latter being a condition I have unpleasant personal experience of).
As for the origin of life, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, document in exquisite detail the laboratory experiments that have been conducted, establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life works. As well as the synthesis pathways for simple molecules such as lipids, amino acids and nucleotides (numerous papers cover such reactions in detail), we have, for example, laboratory experiments establishing that RNA molecules are synthesised via the catalytic action of montmorillonite clays in marine aqueous environments, once we have nucleotide synthesis in place. Furthermore, other experiments have established that RNA molecules themselves exhibit a wide range of catalytic activities for other chemical reactions, including self-replication in the presence of a supply of nucleotides. Indeed, recently, a team of Japanese scientists not only established that RNA molecules sythesised in such a manner exhibit self-replication capability, but generate their own molecular ecosystem via Darwinian evolution.
Indeed, the literature informs us that the research in this field has moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells, and the journal Nature alone has entire collections of scientific papers covering said experiments. I can provide citations in abundance from the literature, and since I’ve spent 14 years reviewing said papers, I’ll know in advance if you’re quote mining said papers or erecting specious apologetic fabrications to try and hand-wave away the results.
Indeed, I’ve posted relevant results in the past in detail on the old version of this forum, but I’m working on an updated version that includes more modern work and references to add to the material extant in that previous post, and I’ll enjoy working on that new version.
Several of the regulars here will enjoy the finished product.
7 Likes
For those interested, I’ve now completed my work on the updated origin of life article I first wrote way back in 2010, with recent updates to include Sutherland’s work on prebiotic nucleotide synthesis, and the recent work on the eregence of molecular ecosystems in a Darwinian laboratory RNA experiment by a team of Japanese scientists. You can read the article here. Enjoy.
8 Likes
@Sherlock-Holmes will enjoy that, he claims to be scientifically trained apparently. Though he also claims to believe in unevidenced superstition and mythologies.
2 Likes
I think I can leave you to read Callissea’s reply. It will, of course, or should, of course make you pick up your ball and goalposts from that far distant field and retreat sobbing that "science! It’s not fair, I LIKE my fantasy".
Funny how a gotcha moment can turn to dust in your chubby fist ain’t it?
Stay well, and do read that article from the big C. It comes from a well of knowledge that I can barely sip at.
5 Likes
To me, it’s getting clear that the statements S-H make about science having no facts are a projection brought over from his entirely faith-based religious beliefs, in order to defend them from science/fact based arguments and protect his religion from being “bested” by science.
2 Likes
I agree, it leaped out at me even among his relentless bs, that’s why I spent twenty minutes finding the posts when he tried to deny it yesterday, and implied that I had misrepresented him. Once the quotes were up he completely ignored that conversation, even though I repeated them 3 times. Then he lost it and started hurling abuse indiscriminately, a sure sign he knew he’d been busted for lying.
The real hilarity is that I guarantee he was wrongly defining fact as some sort of absolute, it’s surprising how many theists do that, especially when discussing scientific facts that refute the core doctrine of their religious beliefs. He tried so hard to sneer at the claim without ever honestly addressing it, it was like a red flag. The more he ran away the more clear it was he knew he’d said something stupid, but didn’t have the integrity to admit it.
4 Likes