Origin of Life

[Av8torbob]

Over on Twitter, @AronRa made the following claim concerning the Origin of Life:

“We both agree that life began somehow. I say that happened naturally. You say it happened magically. I can show a series of facts suporting my position.”

First, I never said it happened magically. That’s a false claim but it’s not why I’m here. I simply asked him to share the “series of facts supporting” a naturalistic/materialist explanation for abiogenesis (where inert matter became a self-replicating life form). He directed me here.

I look forward to seeing the peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data supporting his claim but I suspect I’m just going to get a story. We’ll see.

Cheers …

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I look forward to seeing the peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data supporting his claim…

Here you go. Now that was not so hard. One wonders why you could not find this.

… but I suspect I’m just going to get a story.

Why would you suspect that? Maybe for the same reason you did not think there is peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data for abiogenesis?

 

[Av8torbob]

Comical.

I asked for peer-reviewed empirical evidence so you Google “abiogenesis” and send me to a Wikipedia page?! Amazing.

I suspected I’d get a story … and that’s exactly what I got. A list of “hypotheses,” to include citation of the Miller-Urey experiment from … wait for it … 1952.

Maybe you’re unaware that Miller-Urey has never been duplicated. Not only so, but it was debunked at least 25 years ago because we have since learned that the initial conditions on the early Earth were NOTHING like the ones they used.

No mention of the Oxygen conundrum wherein oxygen must be present to support life, but simultaneously wrecks the proto-biochemical reactions that have to be in place.

No mention of the fact that DNA replication requires RNA copying to produce proteins, but you have to already have those proteins because they are the “worker bees” that operate in the process.

I could go on. The point is that the more Origin-of-Life researchers learn about what it would require for a materialistic explanation, the more daunting the obstacles become.

I’ve heard all the stories. I don’t have time for more of the same.

Empirical, repeatable evidence of how the process actually works, please.

 

[AronRa]

Over on Twitter, @AronRa made the following claim concerning the Origin of Life:

“We both agree that life began somehow. I say that happened naturally. You say it happened magically. I can show a series of facts suporting my position.”

First, I never said it happened magically. That’s a false claim but it’s not why I’m here. I simply asked him to share the “series of facts supporting” a naturalistic/materialist explanation for abiogenesis (where inert matter became a self-replicating life form). He directed me here.

I look forward to seeing the peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data supporting his claim but I suspect I’m just going to get a story. We’ll see.

Cheers …

Welcome to the League of Reason. Since we both agree that there was once a time when there was no life on this planet, and then there was, I will present evidence that it occurred naturally, and you will present your evidence that it happened magically.
To begin, according to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up anywhere, there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells. And prior to that, there is no evident life of any kind at all. There were no primates 100 million years ago, no mammals 200 million years ago, no dinosaurs 300 million years ago, and no land animals whatsoever 400 million years ago. 500 million years ago, there weren’t any insects or vertebrates with actual bones, and 600 million years ago, there weren’t even the most primitive fish yet. We’ve never found any trace fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we do have bacterial microfossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that the most advanced organisms were still only microscopic and microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet.

What we know of the early earth is that it was much warmer and more radioactive than it is today, a bubbling cauldron cooking complex chemicals. Thanks to Urey-Miller and a number of other, similar experiments, we know that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/17/4306

The same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide.

NASA - "Lost" Miller Experiment Gives Pungent Clue to Origin of Life

Hydrogen sulfide, the malodorous compound produced by rotten eggs, may have been an important ingredient in the recipe for life, according to a recently discovered experiment performed by Dr. Stanley Miller in 1958.

www.nasa.gov

Similarly, heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.

Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life | WIRED

www.wired.com

I have maybe a couple dozen more peer reviewed studies to show, building on these. But first, do you understand and accept this much?

I await your evidence for miraculous conjuring.

 

[AronRa]

Maybe you’re unaware that Miller-Urey has never been duplicated. Not only so, but it was debunked at least 25 years ago because we have since learned that the initial conditions on the early Earth were NOTHING like the ones they used.

Notice that the studies I provided include a duplication Urey-Miller, and an update, where Urey and Miller did the same experiment to account for suggested alternate conditions, and the experiment worked then too. Then notice also that experiment was never debunked and was more recently discovered that the original experiment was more successful that previously thought, when modern detection equipment evaluated the old samples and discovered that it had produced no less than 22 amino acids.

 

[*SD*]

Maybe you’re unaware that Miller-Urey has never been duplicated. Not only so, but it was debunked at least 25 years ago because we have since learned that the initial conditions on the early Earth were NOTHING like the ones they used.

Welcome to LoR.

I'm going to largely stay out of this since it appears to be Aron you want to talk to, save for pointing out the above isn't a debunk of anything - not even close. The Miller/Urey experiments only sought to establish whether organic matter could arise from inorganic matter, they showed that it can, the conditions used make no difference at all. It's rather odd that critics of the Miller/Urey experiments can succeed in finding this massively flawed objection, and mysteriously fail to discover the rebuttal to aforementioned massively flawed objection.

Enjoy the forum!

 

[*SD*]

and you will present your evidence that it happened magically.

He will?!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I asked for peer-reviewed empirical evidence so you Google “abiogenesis” and send me to a Wikipedia page?! Amazing.

I linked to the citations of the Wikipedia page about abiogenesis. You said you wanted peer-reviewed empirical evidence and repeatable scientific data after all, and that is what is in that citation list. Are you unaware of how Wikipedia works?

I suspected I’d get a story … and that’s exactly what I got. A list of “hypotheses,” to include citation of the Miller-Urey experiment from … wait for it … 1952.

Correct, and?

Maybe you’re unaware that Miller-Urey has never been duplicated. Not only so, but it was debunked at least 25 years ago because we have since learned that the initial conditions on the early Earth were NOTHING like the ones they used.

That is just false, as AronRa and *SD* demonstrate.

No mention of the Oxygen conundrum wherein oxygen must be present to support life, but simultaneously wrecks the proto-biochemical reactions that have to be in place.

That is covered in the Wikipedia article twice. You have not read it, have you?

No mention of the fact that DNA replication requires RNA copying to produce proteins, but you have to already have those proteins because they are the “worker bees” that operate in the process.

That is also covered in the Wikipedia article. You have not read it, have you?

I could go on.

You could. No one is stopping you from looking foolish.

The point is that the more Origin-of-Life researchers learn about what it would require for a materialistic explanation, the more daunting the obstacles become.

Says you. Beyond that, you realize that negative evidence for a hypothesis is not positive evidence for a different hypothesis, right?

I’ve heard all the stories. I don’t have time for more of the same.

It seems like you have only heard stories because you refuse to look at facts and evidence.

Empirical, repeatable evidence of how the process actually works, please.

'Tis what I provided, and you ignorantly dismissed.

 

[Av8torbob]

So

To begin, according to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up anywhere, there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells. And prior to that, there is no evident life of any kind at all. There were no primates 100 million years ago, no mammals 200 million years ago, no dinosaurs 300 million years ago, and no land animals whatsoever 400 million years ago. 500 million years ago, there weren’t any insects or vertebrates with actual bones, and 600 million years ago, there weren’t even the most primitive fish yet. We’ve never found any trace fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we do have bacterial microfossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that the most advanced organisms were still only microscopic and microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet.

Oh, look! A story about the history of life on Earth in which life becomes more advanced and complex as time goes on! Who saw that coming?!

PROBLEM: Your completely predictable STORY doesn’t have anything to do with how the original, complex, DNA-driven life actually came to be in the first place!

In case you forgot, that’s what we’re here to talk about.

Thanks to Urey-Miller and a number of other, similar experiments, we know that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity.

The same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide.

Super!

PROBLEM(S):
1. Note that none of the examples you offer include Oxygen in the mix. But as long ago as 1979, Canadian geologists Erich Dimroth and Michael Kimberly stated that they saw “no evidence that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history.”

Oops.

Again, I point you back to my original response about Oxygen.

2. The actual primordial Earth consisted of “nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor.”

Oops.

Similarly, heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids

So, let’s say this is all true (even though it occurred under the wrong initial conditions), what does it prove?

That intelligent researchers can design an experiment to produce amino acids. Great!

Then what? In case you forgot your high school biology, let me help.

DNA operates like a highly complex, error-correcting, self-replicating software program that gives complex instructions on how, where, and when to build proteins. It’s a base 4 information system that has been compared to a language.

In that language analogy the following is true

Amino acids = letters
Polypeptides = words
Proteins = sentences
Biochemical pathways = paragraphs

So, the best your little story gets you is some random letters in a multi-volume instruction manual more complex than anything Microsoft has ever produced (Bill Gates’ words, not mine).

Your quest — and the only reason I came here — is to provide peer reviewed, repeatable experimental data that show the mechanisms and process that made that happen.

Good luck, we’re all counting on you!

 

[Av8torbob]

It seems like you have only heard stories because you refuse to look at facts and evidence.

He who Googles “abiogenesis” (because he’s apparently never heard the word before) wants to lecture me about “facts and evidence.”

As I said, that’s comical.

See my response to @AronRa above if you’d like a little education in that department.

Have a great weekend.

 

[*SD*]

I can see this will be about as fun and productive as it usually is. In other words, not at all.

If your opening gambit hadn't been prickly, sassy, condescending, haughty and borderline infantile this could have been an interesting discussion. But it's already transparent in, what, a sum total of four posts since joining that you deserve no slack from anyone here. What's your exit strategy? To ask for XYZ and then when presented with XYZ to pretend, yes, pretend nobody offered you X, Y or Z?

The puffing and posturing is hilarious but moreso sad and pathetic. You clearly aren't here for an honest exchange, what a surprise.

 

[Av8torbob]

I can see this will be about as fun and productive as it usually is. In other words, not at all.

If your opening gambit hadn't been prickly, sassy, condescending, haughty and borderline infantile this could have been an interesting discussion. But it's already transparent in, what, a sum total of four posts since joining that you deserve no slack from anyone here. What's your exit strategy? To ask for XYZ and then when presented with XYZ to pretend, yes, pretend nobody offered you X, Y or Z?

The puffing and posturing is hilarious but moreso sad and pathetic. You clearly aren't here for an honest exchange, what a surprise.

I came here because @AronRa promised facts to support his claim that life arose by purely natural causes. He hasn’t presented anything close. I just gave a point-by-point response to Aron for why I say that.

In other words, Aron offered XYZ. I came here thinking I might learn XYZ because I follow this topic very closely and have never seen it. Turns out, each of you have offered nothing but a story that completely avoids the core issue of XYZ.

Do you have a rebuttal or something science-related to add? The ad hominem nature of your response makes me doubt that you do. But if so, I’d love to see it. If not, you’ve given me no reason to take you seriously.

 

[*SD*]

You clearly don't know what an ad-hom is, you just know it's a thing. Nowhere did I mount an ad-hom attack. There are three different stripes of person when it comes to this sort of thing -

1- Those who have never heard of logical fallacies
2 - Those who have heard of them and know the names of some of them
3 - Those who have not only heard of them and know the names of them but those who understand what's entailed in committing them

 

[Av8torbob]

You clearly don't know what an ad-hom is, you just know it's a thing. Nowhere did I mount an ad-hom attack. There are three different stripes of person when it comes to this sort of thing -

1- Those who have never heard of logical fallacies
2 - Those who have heard of them and know the names of some of them
3 - Those who have not only heard of them and know the names of them but those who understand what's entailed in committing them

So, you don’t have anything scientific then.

OK, thanks.

 

[*SD*]

Let's say I don't, let's just grant that for a second. And?

I still know what's involved in committing an ad-hom and you don't, that puts me at least one step (likely several more) ahead of you.

Instead of trying to pit your (shitty and obviously drowning) wit against mine, why don't you provide something substantive in response to those (including me) who have replied to you already?

 

[Av8torbob]

Let's say I don't, let's just grant that for a second. And?

I still know what's involved in committing an ad-hom and you don't, that puts me at least one step (likely several more) ahead of you.

Instead of trying to pit your (shitty and obviously drowning) wit against mine, why don't you provide something substantive in response to those (including me) who have replied to you already?

Well, here’s your comment:

“If your opening gambit hadn't been prickly, sassy, condescending, haughty and borderline infantile.”

It goes on to ignore the entire argument I made.

So, name calling without any reference to the actual argument I made is the definition of ad hominem. That makes you right about one thing: one of us doesn’t know the definition of ad-hom.

As for your question, maybe you didn’t read my reply to @AronRa. It includes specific details about the flaws in the initial conditions of the experiments he cited and and a challenge that follows even if he is right.

What else do you want me to do? Is that not the definition of a productive discussion?

 

[*SD*]

So

Oh, look! A story about the history of life on Earth in which life becomes more advanced and complex as time goes on! Who saw that coming?!

PROBLEM: Your completely predictable STORY doesn’t have anything to do with how the original, complex, DNA-driven life actually came to be in the first place!

In case you forgot, that’s what we’re here to talk about.


Super!

PROBLEM(S):
1. Note that none of the examples you offer include Oxygen in the mix. But as long ago as 1979, Canadian geologists Erich Dimroth and Michael Kimberly stated that they saw “no evidence that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history.”

Oops.

Again, I point you back to my original response about Oxygen.

2. The actual primordial Earth consisted of “nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor.”

Oops.



So, let’s say this is all true (even though it occurred under the wrong initial conditions), what does it prove?

That intelligent researchers can design an experiment to produce amino acids. Great!

Then what? In case you forgot your high school biology, let me help.

DNA operates like a highly complex, error-correcting, self-replicating software program that gives complex instructions on how, where, and when to build proteins. It’s a base 4 information system that has been compared to a language.

In that language analogy the following is true

Amino acids = letters
Polypeptides = words
Proteins = sentences
Biochemical pathways = paragraphs

So, the best your little story gets you is some random letters in a multi-volume instruction manual more complex than anything Microsoft has ever produced (Bill Gates’ words, not mine).

Your quest — and the only reason I came here — is to provide peer reviewed, repeatable experimental data that show the mechanisms and process that made that happen.

Good luck, we’re all counting on you!

The "nuh-uh" defence. How fucking refreshing. Definitely never heard that one before.

 

[*SD*]

Well, here’s your comment:

“If your opening gambit hadn't been prickly, sassy, condescending, haughty and borderline infantile.”

It goes on to ignore the entire argument I made.

So, name calling without any reference to the actual argument I made is the definition of ad hominem. That makes you right about one thing: one of us doesn’t know the definition of ad-hom.

As for your question, maybe you didn’t read my reply to @AronRa. It includes specific details about the flaws in the initial conditions of the experiments he cited and and a challenge that follows even if he is right.

What else do you want me to do? Is that not the definition of a productive discussion?

I know what I wrote, I was sitting here when I wrote it. What name calling? What names did I call YOU?

 

[*SD*]

You have NO IDEA what an ad-hom is, you've just heard it bandied about wherever you usually hang around and you THINK you know what it is. The hilarity is you've managed to get it even MORE wrong than most people do. Not only did I NOT name call, I didn't even allude to anything about you as a person, I criticised your post, that can never be an ad-hom.

Stop wasting people's time, go learn some stuff then come back if you want.

 

[Av8torbob]

The "nuh-uh" defence. How fucking refreshing. Definitely never heard that one before.

And your rebuttal to the points made?