I rebutted your objection to the Miller/Urey experiments, as did others. You have failed to acknowledge this rebuttal thus far, feel free to address it going forward.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Origin of Life
- Thread starter Av8torbob
- Start date
I rebutted your objection to the Miller/Urey experiments, as did others. You have failed to acknowledge this rebuttal thus far, feel free to address it going forward.
Translation: I have nothing to offer in the discussion as it relates to the origin of life (you know, the topic that is the title of the thread) so please don’t keep asking me to give something. It would be much easier if you’d just go away.
AronRa
Administrator
I didn't give you a "story". I outlined the facts indicating important conditions of the prebiotic earth.
Are you aware of any primate fossils ≥ 100 million years old?
Are you aware of any mammal fossils ≥ 200 million years old?
Are you aware of any dinosaur fossils ≥ 300 million years old?
Are you aware of any terrestrial animal fossils ≥ 400 million years old?
Are you aware of any vertebrate or insect fossils ≥ 500 million years old?
Are you aware of any chordate fossils ≥ 600 million years old?
Are you UN-aware of bacterial microfossils billions of years than the fossils of even the oldest multicellular organisms?
If your answer to any of the above is yes, then show that evidence. Otherwise, if the answer to all of these is no, then it proves that the most advanced organisms were still only microscopic and microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet. If your magic imaginary friend existed back then, he couldn't have poofed every species ever into being all at once; the fossil record shows otherwise, with nearly 3 billion years between the origin of life and the dawn of man.
So your source couldn't find any evidence in the 1970s? This article from 2016 describes evidence that oxygen first appeared on the earth 2.33 billion years ago.
I have seen a wealth of studies from current going back through the 1990s and even into the 1980s reflecting the reigning consensus that the prebiotic atmosphere is anaerobic.
Wrong. These studies show that in the given circumstances, these chemical reactions will occur.
Except that DNA is not a language and it certainly isn't software. Nor are the chemical constituents at all comparable to text. What you're calling letters aren't even letters. Those are abbreviations for the chemical nucleobases, cytosine, guanine, adenine (found in both DNA and RNA), thymine (found only in DNA), and uracil.
I have already done that, and I have a lot more to show. But first, do you understand and accept what I have already shown, now that we have corrected your false assumptions about them?
You however have another obligation.
You said you had and could show evidence just as I do and can. I told you, you could not honestly make such a claim, but you doubled-down. So where is that evidence you promised? Or will you now recant what you said on Twitter and admit that I was right, that you can NOT say "the same", that you can NOT say either that there is no evidence for my position nor that there is any evidence against my position. Nor can you honestly say that my evidence is not evidence nor that you have any evidence at all, since you are unable to produce even one single fact that is indicative of your position.
Go
I didn’t deny or question any of your claims about the fossil record or the nature of early life on Earth, @AronRa. I even allowed for the amino acids Miller-Urey created (via intelligently designed experiments) in the lab. Those are NOT the issue!
The issue is about evidence for the actual mechanisms and processes that turned those random amino acids into self-replicating DNA.
That’s what you promised when you told me to come here. You’ve shown NOTHING of the kind.
Good Lord, let me keep this simple.
I didn’t deny or question any of your claims about the fossil record or the nature of early life on Earth, @AronRa. I even allowed for the amino acids Miller-Urey created (via intelligently designed experiments) in the lab. Those are NOT the issue!
The issue is about evidence for the actual mechanisms and processes that turned those random amino acids into self-replicating DNA.
That’s what you promised when you told me to come here. You’ve shown NOTHING of the kind.
Nuh-uh.
Told ya.
Hi again, sorry (not in the least) but that just isn't going to happen. You can leave whenever you please.
I understand it would be much easier if we did go away, but we aren't going to.
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re misconstruing what I said. I didn’t say nucleotide bases were letters. I said AMINO ACIDS are analogous to letters in relation to polypeptides, proteins, and biochemical pathways. They’re subsets of the larger entities.
The question is about what mechanisms led from them to self-replicating DNA.
Dude, are you trying to be funny or do you really not understand simple English? My TRANSLATION was about what YOU said to ME.
This is just painful to imagine on a site ironically named “League of Reason”
Nah, I'm naturally fucking hilarious at all times, no effort is required.
Yeah, says the guy who thought he knew what an ad-hom was and then face-planted in spectacular fashion when called out on it
What would you prefer the URL to be? leagueoftotalfuckingnonsense.com?!
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Cute.
I did not lecture you; I merely provided a link to exactly what you are looking for. Type in abiogenesis into the search function of this forum and see what comes up. However, you could not find the peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data when I directly linked it to you earlier, so I will not hold my breath on this.
I saw your argument from ignorance. What of it? Did you see where I addressed your points about oxygen and RNA? Did you see where AronRa and *SD* corrected your misunderstanding about the Miller-Urey experiment? Will you admit to being wrong about the Miller-Urey experiment never being reproduced and debunked?
I doubt that.
It did not include any details—just your gross ignorance of this subject.
To help move this along a little faster, does this mean you accept the finding of the Miller-Urey experiment, or are you just saying you are accepting them for the sake of argument? There is a vast difference.
This is what prompted me to come here… @AronRa’s claim that he could provide a series of facts demonstrating the ORIGIN of life, not it’s subsequent evolution.
I didn’t come here to defend my position and had no intention of doing so. I came here to get facts about your position. It’s very clear in the Twitter thread that that is the only reason I created an account here.
Nooooo......... say it ain't so!
Sure, just cut and paste a snippet that completely ignores the context and the screen shots that show why I’m on this platform at all.
Very courageous.
AronRa
Administrator
When I said that my evidence is peer reviewed mainstream science and that your evidence is not evidence, you argued that, as you could say the same; as if you too have evidence from peer reviewed mainstream science. I challenged you on that, saying that you can't say that because there is no evidence for your position. But you doubled-down, insisting that you *do* have evidence. Do you now admit that you lied about that, since you cannot produce any of the evidence you previously said you had?
Why did you falsely accuse me of sharing a "story" when all I did was present the facts indicating microbes for billions of years before multicellular life? Will now admit that you were wrong about that accusation as well?
I didn't put words in your mouth either. I cited you correctly in my response. And by the way, if we were to convert the human genome into binary code, it would just about fit onto a single CD.Av8torBob said:
Now, to get back on topic, abiogenesis is a multi-stage process with many intermediate steps building on prior structures, the most basic of which are that we needed to show that organic chemistry could emerge from the inorganic basis. For the third time, do you understand and accept that we have shown that first part? At least now that we've corrected your erroneous assumptions about the Urey-Miller experiments? We have a lot more to cover, several more cumulative stages, but we never going to get there if you can't even comprehend the most basic part to begin with.
I agree. Let’s get back on topic.
I will grant you that everything you presented is true. There you go.
Now, show me the peer-reviewed, repeatable data that demonstrates the natural mechanisms and processes that took some randomly generated amino acids and created self-replicating, information-containing DNA.
I’ll check back periodically to see if you’ve done that and marvel in my responses if/when you do. Until then, I’ll leave you and your friends alone in your echo chamber to share Wikipedia pages, smart-ass one-liners, emoji comments, and selectively edited parts of sentences taken out of context among yourselves. Enjoy.
I wish you nothing but the best.
I will grant you that everything you presented is true. There you go.
Now, show me the peer-reviewed, repeatable data that demonstrates the natural mechanisms and processes that took some randomly generated amino acids and created self-replicating, information-containing DNA.
I’ll check back periodically to see if you’ve done that and marvel in my responses if/when you do. Until then, I’ll leave you and your friends alone in your echo chamber to share Wikipedia pages, smart-ass one-liners, emoji comments, and selectively edited parts of sentences taken out of context among yourselves. Enjoy.
I wish you nothing but the best.
AronRa
Administrator
Getting back on track, now that we have established that the conditions of the prebiotic earth were capable of producing organic chemicals including amino acids, we need evidence supporting the the next step. A separate study showed that synthetic molecules fold up into abiotic proteins. So life is not necessarily the only source of proteins.
Synthetic molecules fold up into abiotic proteins
Compound that self-assembles into giant folded ring could help scientists design bespoke abiotic proteins
www.chemistryworld.com
The synthesis of proteinous amino acids and amino acid polymers called “proteinoids” from inorganic molecules and thermal energy, created the world‘s first potential protocell out of proteinoids and water.
Another study showed that redox and pH gradients drive amino acid synthesis in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems. Alanine and valine, two of the proteinogenic amino acids thought to be among the most abundant on a prebiotic earth, can polymerize into peptides.
As you can see, each round of these studies gets one step closer to biochemistry. Before we move on the next step, do you understand and accept the evidence I have shown so far?