"Primitive plants survive almost two years in outer space" Topic

"Primitive plants are the latest forms of Earth life to show they can survive in the harshness of space, and for many months. Cold-loving algae from the Arctic Circle have joined the space-travelling club, alongside bacteria, lichens and even simple animals called tardigrades.

Preliminary studies of the algae after their return to Earth from the International Space Station lend some weight to the "panspermia" theory, that comets and meteorites could potentially deliver life to otherwise sterile planets. The results also provide insights into the potential for human colonies on distant planets to grow crops brought from Earth…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The theory of "Panspermia" just shifts the problem of "we don't know how the origin of life happened here" to out there somewhere in the cosmos.

Life would first have to somehow originate on a planet out there somewhere, then somehow survive being be blasted out into space, then somehow survive a journey of god knows how long through radiation and freezing cold to get here, then survive the fiery plunge into our Earth's atmosphere all in the hope that the environment that it landed in would allow it to take hold.

If true, then it appears then that miracles can occur.

It's a better theory in my mind than intelligent design and a 2000 (and a bit) year old planet.

Yet, miraculous never the less…

Or it could be you just don't have a complete answer….yet. Such Panspermia events could be quite common and not at all miraculous.

"….and then a miracle occurs…" Is not a scientific, or mathematical conclusion, it is, as it has always been, an interim explanation for ignorance.

I ask: Is the explanation that life got here from "out there, somewhere, somehow" a scientific explanation?

Science is the study of process, true? So, how are we to study a process that occurred "out there, somewhere, somehow" and a long time ago? At best it is a hypothesis, and with all of the problems it has to overcome, a very poor one at that.

Ask yourself: Why was the "interim explanation" of Panspermia even proposed in the first place if all of the evidence here pointed to life originating here by chance, natural processes…?

Simply, they have studied the evidences here, and finding them pointing to the impossibility of life originating here by chance, natural processes, they simply proposed to shift the problem to somewhere where we couldn't study it, that is, to "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…".

Avoids the problem of abiogenesis altogether, eh?

Simply, they have studied the evidences here, and finding them pointing to the impossibility of life originating here by chance, natural processes, they simply proposed to shift the problem to somewhere where we couldn't study it, that is, to "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…".

Avoids the problem of abiogenesis altogether, eh?

Umm……not so sure about that. Nobody is saying that abiogenesis on Earth was impossible. Where do you get that from?

Some, like me on another thread, simply conjecture that life may have started on Mars sooner due to physical differences between the planets. Bits of Mars, blasted by asteroids, land on Earth and contain primitive organisms in stasis. They waken and colonize the Earth. It's a supposition.

The abiogenesis would have had to occur on Mars anyway.

May be of interest:

Localized aliphatic organic material on the surface of Ceres
link

Building blocks of life found on dwarf planet Ceres
link

Thanks, very interesting.

You're very welcome! :)

I'm sure you will agree that there is one hell of a chasm to cross between simply finding some basic organic molecules out there and a self replicating organism. There are just so many things that need to happen in a particular order and in a particular way, that if it did happen, then it would scarcely be distinguishable from a miracle.

I'm sure you will agree that there is one hell of a chasm to cross between simply finding some basic organic molecules out there and a self replicating organism.

Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. Some basic organic molecules? How about eight of the twenty amino acids that make up every protein found in every living organism known? They have been extracted from meteorites. How many others are made from conditions on post Hadean Mars and Earth? There have been amazing discoveries in the last few years. You should look into not them.

There are just so many things that need to happen in a particular order and in a particular way, that if it did happen, then it would scarcely be distinguishable from a miracle.

Especially if you can't shake the "whirlwind in the junk yard yields a 747" paradigm. Having a small degree of probability is not synonymous with miraculous. Also remember that Behe's Irreducible Complexity has been thoroughly debunked by better scientists.

Dear Ghecko,

On rereading my response I think my comment of, "Yes, thanks for stating the obvious." was uncalled for. My apologies. Your comments were all civil and polite.

I took no offence Bowman for I did obviously stated the obvious. And to state the obvious again, and as no doubt you are aware, there is much about the process of abiogenesis that remains unknown, and may never be known.

But, Pansmermia? Seriously? It doesn't have "a small degree of probability" of occurring; at best it has a three tenths of half of nothing degree of probability of occurring.

It kind of comes back to what I said before:

Life [read those eight amino acids] would first have to somehow originate on a planet out there somewhere [liquid water is required to form these complex molecules], then somehow survive being be blasted out into space [intense heat breaks down complex molecules], then somehow survive a journey of god knows how long through radiation [intense radiation breaks down complex molecules]and freezing cold [such molecules have half lives] to get here [what would be the probability be of that occurring? Ooops – just missed Earth by a whisper and shot off out into the cosmos], then survive the fiery plunge into our Earth's atmosphere [again, intense heat breaks down complex molecules] all in the hope that the [local] environment that it landed in would allow it to take hold [perhaps this should read "they" as you hint that the amino acids may have arrived on separate meteorites, not just one]

For such a series of events to take place, especially if several meteorites were involved, then, yes, the "whirlwind in the junk yard yields a 747" paradigm would seem to be appropriate.

I took no offence Bowman for I did obviously stated the obvious. And to state the obvious again, and as no doubt you are aware, there is much about the process of abiogenesis that remains unknown, and may never be known.

Good. I wouldn't be certain about that last sentence at all, though.

But, Pansmermia? Seriously? It doesn't have "a small degree of probability" of occurring; at best it has a three tenths of half of nothing degree of probability of occurring.

Well there is panspermia and then there is panspermia. Having bits of Mars land on Earth after impacts with asteroids is fact. Asteroids landing directly on the Earth is fact. (In fact, I will try to collect micro-meteorites that land on my roof by putting a magnetic filter on to my down spouts. Look it up). These meteors and asteroids contain organic materials, and that's a fact. Mars and the asteroid belt seeding the Earth with viable organisms is improbable but not impossible. Seeding the Earth with life's building blocks (including water) has been demonstrated.

Life [read those eight amino acids] would first have to somehow originate on a planet out there somewhere [liquid water is required to form these complex molecules], then somehow survive being be blasted out into space [intense heat breaks down complex molecules], then somehow survive a journey of god knows how long through radiation [intense radiation breaks down complex molecules]and freezing cold [such molecules have half lives] to get here [what would be the probability be of that occurring?…….

Doesn't matter what the probability is……it's happened. 8 amino acids have been found in meteorites that have fallen to Earth, at a concentration of roughly 60ppm. The Murcheson meteorite contained up to 52 different amino acids.

link

The 8 that I mentioned are 8 of only 20 that make up all the proteins in all the living things on Earth. The rest have been made in experiments that have replicated conditions of an early Earth. Or have yet to be discovered. This is an ongoing field of research.

It's been shown that phospholipids are autocatalytic and always arrange themselves to keep the hydrophobic parts away from the wet external environment. In the presence of their constituents, lipid walls will grow and even replicate. Lipid components have been found in meteorites also.

link

PDF link

Also, long chain "tar-like" aliphatics have been recently found on the Dwarf planet Ceres.

link

And while nucleic acids are too big and fragile to survive space travel and crashes with planets, the building blocks of these chemicals have been found in meteorites. Two of the four nucleobases in DNA (adenine and guanine) have been found in meteorites since the 1980's. Other nucleobases that are not found in DNA or RNA have been discovered too.

link

Ribose, the sugar backbone of DNA and RNA, has been artificially produced when ice meteors made of water, methanol amd methane were placed in a vacuum and bombarded with UV light.

link

Pre-sugar polyols have been found in meteorites and will also produce ribose and other sugars through UV photochemistry.

link

So basically we have everything already here or falling out of the skies needed to form simple self replicating things. That is another topic for discussion. The building blocks are all around us and being delivered to us continuously.

For such a series of events to take place, especially if several meteorites were involved, then, yes, the "whirlwind in the junk yard yields a 747" paradigm would seem to be appropriate.

No that paradigm is used by creationists and is totally wrong and inappropriate. I won't derail this by pointing out its problems.

Oh and don't forget Philae, which landed on the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet last November. It found 16 organic compounds.

link

Be most assured Bowman that I have no problem with any of the information supplied above on the compounds/molecules/etc that were found in various places. What I said earlier was this:

I'm sure you will agree that there is one hell of a chasm to cross between simply finding some basic organic molecules out there and a self replicating organism. There are just so many things that need to happen in a particular order and in a particular way, that if it did happen, then it would scarcely be distinguishable from a miracle.

It's not that these relatively simple compounds, etc, exist, it's how these relatively simple compounds come together to form a self-replicating organism. That's where the chasm exists. For example you said:

Ribose, the sugar backbone of DNA and RNA, has been artificially produced when ice meteors made of water, methanol and methane were placed in a vacuum and bombarded with UV light.

Fair enough. But I go on to ask questions like: What of the chirality problem involved? And, what affect does UV radiation have on molecules or amino acids, not to forget the effect of UV radiation on life itself? And in a vacuum (suggesting it's in the space environment). What happens to Ribose from the intense heat during the ice meteor's fiery plunge through Earth's atmosphere? Etc.

For me, just having the necessary building blocks is not enough, nor should it be for you. Science, no, to be more precise, Chemistry needs to explain the natural processes involved that result in a self replicating organism… while at the same time explaining how the pitfalls and problems involved at each step were overcome in the natural environment.

A massive task I'm sure you would agree. Every step would have to be fine-tuned to the n-th degree. Step after step after step for everything involved until we finally get our self replicating organism.

Even then we are not done. Then we would still have to explain how our single celled organism became a multi-celled organism. Yet another chasm to cross.

As I said before, if multi-celled life did occur through natural processes in the natural environment, then such an event would be indistinguishable from a miracle… which, to be clear, I believe it was.

Ghecko, I agree a lot with what you say and will reserve the comments to the other parts.

I'm sure you will agree that there is one hell of a chasm to cross between simply finding some basic organic molecules out there and a self replicating organism.

But we weren't initially talking about a self replicating organism. You were discussing panspermia. If that meant to you the movement of fully formed self replicating organisms throughout space, then the probability is very small. However, if that meant seeding either Mars or the Earth with the necessary building blocks for abiogenesis to occur then the probability is much, much greater.

There are just so many things that need to happen in a particular order and in a particular way, that if it did happen, then it would scarcely be distinguishable from a miracle.

Well, the probability that you were born is astronomically small. A healthy male's ejaculate contains anywhere between 200 and 500 million sperm cells. Therefore the probability of me being born is also extremely small. The chance both of us are here and discussing something over the internet is now even much, much smaller. Does that make the fact we two are typing to each other right now on TMP a miracle? If it makes you feel better then call it miraculous.

It's like winning a lottery. The probability of someone winning is about 100% (probability of 1.00) The probability of you winning the lottery is extremely small. Is that a miracle? I don't think improbability equals a miracle.

But I go on to ask questions like: What of the chirality problem involved?

Ahh….you've been reading on creationist websites. Chirality is NOT a problem. The only place this is a "problem" is on anti-evolution sites where the writers, quite frankly don't have an understanding of biochemistry.

Look, all biological proteins are made from the same 20 amino acids. All are formed from L or "levo-amino acid" stereoisomers. Only L amino acids can join together with each other or only D (dextro-)amino acids can join together. So all life has to form from one type or the other. They don't mix. It just happened the amino acids that made their way into the proteins of living organisms on this planet were the levo- version. Perhaps there were primitive organisms that formed with dextro-amino acids but they died off. You only have 2 states…..all living things have to be one or the other. It's that simple and not a "problem" at all.

And, what affect does UV radiation have on molecules or amino acids, not to forget the effect of UV radiation on life itself? And in a vacuum (suggesting it's in the space environment). What happens to Ribose from the intense heat during the ice meteor's fiery plunge through Earth's atmosphere? Etc.

Different molecules have different susceptibility to UV damage. In the 70's I used UV to mutate bacteria in order to select mutants that couldn't utilize certain metabolites and to study bacterial repair mechanisms. Thats why DNA or RNA could probably not survive any exposure to space. As far as these building blocks within meterorites, they actually do survive the fiery plunge through the atmosphere. Probably, well within the center of the rock. Otherwise they wouldn't be found, would they?

For me, just having the necessary building blocks is not enough, nor should it be for you.

It's not, but it is a start. If there were NO organic building blocks to life on other planets, dwarf planets, asteroids and meterorites, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Chemistry needs to explain the natural processes involved that result in a self replicating organism… while at the same time explaining how the pitfalls and problems involved at each step were overcome in the natural environment.

Baby steps, Ghecko, baby steps. This whole field of inquiry is only 65 or so years old. They are working on it.

Even then we are not done. Then we would still have to explain how our single celled organism became a multi-celled organism. Yet another chasm to cross.

No, they have a much better idea how the prokayotes in turn formed eukayotic life. I'll leave it to you to start your own research, however. A good place to start is why human mitochondrial DNA looks an awful lot like the genome of Rickettsia Prowazekii. Find out why that is the case and you will be well underway.

Remember, this isn't like looking for Indian arrowheads on lands known to be inhabited by native Indians only 200 years ago. This is very complex genetic and biochemical research on something that happened billions of years ago. Again, this is new research and they have made massive discoveries in a relatively short time.

As I said before, if multi-celled life did occur through natural processes in the natural environment, then such an event would be indistinguishable from a miracle… which, to be clear, I believe it was.

No, multi-celled life never formed through any type of abiogenesis. It formed through evolution. The first life was prokaryotic, single celled eubacteria. They were around probably about 4 billion years ago. The earliest multi-celled eukaryotes showed up about 2,7 billion years ago. The bacteria had a 1.3 billion year head start and were the only living things on the planet for that long. Hope that helps.

Eubacteria? Lol!

That should be archaebacteria. I'm going to blame spellcheck, but I think that was me.

Eubacteria – I knew what you meant.

But we weren't initially talking about a self replicating organism. You were discussing Panspermia.

True, I/we have drifted a little off topic. So, earlier I posted:

Ask yourself: Why was the "interim explanation" of Panspermia even proposed in the first place if all of the evidence here pointed to life originating here by chance, natural processes…?

What I am saying is this: If everyday, natural chemical processes can create/form the necessary building blocks for the origin of life here on Earth, then surely there is no need whatsoever for the "interim explanation" of Pansmermia.

Are you be in agreement with that statement?

What I am saying is this: If everyday, natural chemical processes can create/form the necessary building blocks for the origin of life here on Earth, then surely there is no need whatsoever for the "interim explanation" of Pansmermia.

No there is no need. Abiogenesis, as much as we know about it, could occur here. Any building block not here already could be seeded from asteroids in the belt, comets or even bits of Mars. But there is no proof that these building blocks from outer space were ever needed. It's just interesting that they are formed in these hostile environments and fall onto the Earth with regular occurrences.

Ok, I'll take it that you are in basic agreement with my statement about there being no actual need for it.

You said:

Abiogenesis, as much as we know about it, could occur here. Etc.

You say "could" – I would have thought "did" would be more appropriate if the scientific evidence was conclusive?

The twenty amino acid building blocks required for life – can all of these be formed by basic, everyday, natural chemical processes here on Earth?

You say "could" – I would have thought "did" would be more appropriate if the scientific evidence was conclusive?

Unlike religion, science does not offer 100% iron-clad metaphysical certainty.

Consider Russel Teapot – There's plenty of evidence against there being a pink teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars: One would presumably need a rocket to place a teapot in such and orbit, and those are expensive, and at the moment the purview of the Nation-State, and as such it would be a foolish waste of resources to perform such a mission, as we more or less know the payload and or destination orbits of the vast majority of terrestrial rocket launches. So the evidence of there not being a pink teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is VERY slim, but it's not Zero. A fluke can always happen ;-)

You say "could" – I would have thought "did" would be more appropriate if the scientific evidence was conclusive?

Martin is correct,only religion can offer infallibility. I should have said, "Abiogenesis, as much as we know about it, could occur here, without resorting to outside sources of the chemical building blocks". I'm OK with the word could.

The twenty amino acid building blocks required for life – can all of these be formed by basic, everyday, natural chemical processes here on Earth?

I hate to sound harsh but that is a meaningless question. All 20 essential can be manufactured by living creatures. However, not all the amino acids, for instance we can only manufacture 11 of them. We have to eat the rest.

You mean to ask could all 20 essential amino acids be formed by basic, everyday, natural chemical processes 4 billion years ago? The answer, from experimentally trying to reproduce these conditions, is yes.

The original Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950's synthesized 13 of these amino acids. But that was the first attempt. Since then, they have redone the tests with newer knowledge. For instance the original Miller-Urey experiment had slightly incorrect concentrations of the primordial chemicals. As the tests got better and used more sophisticated technology the results produces all the amino acids used.

Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (October 2008). "The Miller volcanic spark discharge experiment". Science. 322 (5900): 404.

I even found a publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from last year.

link

That's the best that can be done without a time machine.

One thing that I have noticed for a long time now is that Miller-Urey style experiments are usually the only research cited to support the idea that the basic building blocks for life could have occurred naturally and spontaneously from non-living chemical compounds.

The popular perception is that Miller and Urey postulated that the "early" atmosphere consisted of a mix of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour, and they then built an apparatus and put these components in, heated it all up, circulated the components around through an electrical spark to simulate lighting, and some basic building blocks necessary for life were formed. It was then declared that science had taken a huge step forward in showing how life had simply "evolved" on Earth.

Now, let's see what actually happened…

References:

Stanley M Miller and H.C. Urey, "A production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions", Science, Volume 117, (1953)

Stanley M Miller and H.C. Urey, "Organic Compounds Synthesis on Primitive Earth", Science, Volume 130, (1959)

On their first attempt all they produced an insoluble, toxic and carcinogenic mixture not unlike tar. No amino acids were detected and so the experiment was modified and repeated many times. Eventually they did find trace amounts of two of the simplest amino acids: glycine and alanine. After modifying the experiment hundreds of times more they managed to produce trace amounts of several other simple amino acids.

Now, as we all know, there are 20 amino acids essential for all life. All known proteins required by a cell cannot be produced without all of these 20 amino acids being available as a complete set. This leads to the first of many problems.

In order to produce many of these amino acids in a Miller-Urey style experiment, the scenarios required get much more complicated, the apparatus required get much more complicated and the methods used to synthesise them get much more complicated. This "lack of non-artificial, natural everyday processes" to produce all of the particular amino acids required is but one of the "trade secrets" of Miller-Urey style experiments.

Next – Miller and Urey deliberately used an oxygen free atmosphere. Why? Simply because Miller and Urey knew their chemistry. They were well aware that any oxygen in the system would impede the formation of amino acids because amino acids readily oxidise in the presence of oxygen.

So, was the "early" atmosphere oxygen free? This is unlikely. There must have been considerable free oxygen in the atmosphere because of a process known as photo-disassociation, the process whereby intense radiation from the Sun breaks the bonds of water vapour molecules in the upper atmosphere yielding free hydrogen and free oxygen molecules. This "oxygen present problem" is another "trade secret" of Miller-Urey style experiments.

Further, a major source of the likely gases involved in any "early" atmosphere would have been volcanoes. Volcanoes emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and lots of water vapour as steam. Because of this, it is now believed that hydrogen, methane and especially the ammonia as proposed by Miller and Urey were probably not major components of any "early" atmosphere. Further, free ammonia is very soluble in water and thus would have almost certainly been dissolved in the oceans, not free in the atmosphere as Miller and Urey postulated. This "what exactly was the make up of the "early" atmosphere problem" is another "trade secret" of Miller-Urey style experiments.

Next – there is the real problem of undesirable cross-reactions with other compounds. Any and all compounds that could interfere with the chemical bonding to form amino acids have to be removed from the system or experimenters would have no hope of producing any amino acids – compounds in the water such as Silver (Ag+), Lead (Pb++) and Mercury (Hg+) ions because they would disrupt the desired reactions. Even with artificially clean and pure conditions, Miller-Urey style experiments still produced many undesirable compounds such as cyanides and carbon monoxide which further add to the cross-reactions problem. This "undesirable cross-reactions" problem is another "trade secret" of Miller-Urey style experiments.

Next – amino acids are both chemically and physically "fragile" – that means that the very conditions theorised to form them also have the capacity to destroy them. For example, very few amino acids (and proteins as well) remain biologically viable for any length of time at temperatures above 100 deg C. Thus, areas in and around submarine vents which approach 350 deg C, and areas in and around submerged volcanoes where the temperatures are even higher, and the extreme temperatures produced by a meteorite's re-entry, all would easily destroy any amino acids formed. The "temperature breakdown problem" is another "trade secret" of Miller-Urey style experiments.

Next – there is, and there has always been, the problem of homochirality. Any compounds (including amino acids) produced by Miller and Urey style experiments are always "racemic", that is, they form an even mixture of "left-handed" and "right-handed" molecules. However, and as we all know, in every organism on Earth the proteins are formed exclusively from left-handed amino acids. Why just left-handed? The "homochirality problem" has always been a "trade secret" of any Miller-Urey style experiments.

Hubert Yockey pointed this out 40 years ago…

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which it happened.

Yockey, H.P., "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory", Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377-398, 1977. Quotes from p379 and p396

And some 40 years later, even with these known problems with evolutionary abiogenesis theory (and more), why is it that Miller-Urey style experiments have had such a strong and continuing impact on the abiogenetic origins of life? I think the answer involves psychology rather than real science and chemistry. To put it simply:

Miller-Urey style experiments psychologically support the idea of evolutionary abiogenesis – people just want to believe it despite the mountains of the scientific evidence and problems continuing to stack up against it.

One thing that I have noticed for a long time now is that Miller-Urey style experiments are usually the only research cited to support the idea…..

Then I'm afraid you have noticed incorrectly. Upstream are some examples.

On their first attempt all they produced an insoluble, toxic and carcinogenic mixture not unlike tar. No amino acids were detected and so the experiment was modified and repeated many times. Eventually they did find trace amounts of two of the simplest amino acids: glycine and alanine……..(snipped for brevity)

No offence Ghecko, but this is clearly cut and pasted from various anti-evolution websites and presented as your own questions. In fact some sections are word for word plagerism of this website:

link

I won't go into step by step rebuttal…..the "experts" on this and similar sites are just wrong. Look up the actual research yourself.

I also don't think you paid any attention to what I originally wrote to you. For example, the "problem" of chirality. Had you read what I wrote above you wouldn't have asked:

Next – there is, and there has always been, the problem of homochirality.

Again, this is only a "problem" to people with no education in biochemistry, or those pushing an agenda. For example the Creation Ministries website indicates that a Dr. Safarti claims,

… a ‘major hurdle' is the origin of homochirality,…

Safari's comments come from an article in the Journal of Creation, which is not a proper peer reviewed journal. It is a vanity publication of Creation Ministries Int. and does not count as impartial science.

The "homochirality problem" has always been a "trade secret" of any Miller-Urey style experiments.

Nice platitude. Who did you plagiarize for that? Either way it's simply wrong.

Hubert Yockey pointed this out 40 years ago…

You make it sound like he is talking about the supposed "problems" of chirality. He is not. Regardless, much has happened in 40 years. In fact the entire field is only 60 years old.

….why is it that Miller-Urey style experiments have had such a strong and continuing impact on the abiogenetic origins of life?

Because they are real science. While the original research was based on some erroneous assumptions (given what was known in the 50's), the research has been reproduced successfully over the decades. That's how science works.

Miller-Urey style experiments psychologically support the idea of evolutionary abiogenesis – people just want to believe it despite the mountains of the scientific evidence and problems continuing to stack up against it.

First off the term, "evolutionary abiogenesis" is meaningless. The two terms are not related and conflating them is a common error amongst creationists. You are channeling TJ Raymond here.

Evolution is a successful theory which best explains the biodiversity of life we see on our planet. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from non-living precursors. Strictly speaking, the biblical account of Genesis describes one form of abiogenesis.

And sorry, while science is never infallible and constantly correcting itself, to say that there are "Mountains of scientific evidence" against the experiments as published is plainly wrong, despite what the Journal of Creation or certain websites have to say. As for the "problems continuing to stack up against it" I'll say the problems are being whittled away at a good pace. The science is progressing very well, thank you and can lead anywhere.

A word of advice. Plagiarizing a website and then attempting to foist those cut and pasted snippets as your own thoughts is not cool in a Science board.

I'm sorry it is Dr. Sarfati. Here are some interesting write ups about his "science".

link

link

A word of advice. Plagiarizing a website and then attempting to foist those cut and pasted snippets as your own thoughts is not cool in a Science board.

Neither would be what I consider to be ad hominem attacks I would have thought. Nevertheless, it is clear that I'm not as smart as you – so what? All I am trying to do is discuss the issues – putting forward what I consider to be relevant – just as you desire to do Bowman.

The way I see it is that (when it comes to abiogenesis) there are just too many things that must come together in the same place at the same time, in the right conditions, in the right concentrations, etc, etc, etc, for even something like a simple protein to result, let alone something much more complex like a living, reproducing organism.

Even then, just having the right chemicals/molecules/compounds (or even proteins or RNA or DNA) doesn't guarantee "life" automatically results – it's all in the arrangement of those components – the very specific organisation of those components. Hence, the difference between "life" and "non-life" is not so much about what's available and how and when, it's about how it's arranged. Can all of these components self-organise in such a way as to result in a living organism?

I guess for me abiogenesis boils down to a question of probability. If it can be deduced that the probability of abiogenesis occurring by natural means is next to zero, then any evolutionary explanation of life and how it proceeded is clearly "dead in the water even before it starts" (and yes, before anyone gets too upset, I recalled that quote from somewhere but I am unsure as to where).

Bowman: I would hope that you and I could at least agree that the well established, well understood science of chemistry is able to give us definitive answers on the subject. Clearly, the chemistry must add up (and probably the Thermodynamics as well I would presume) – and it is my conclusion that it doesn't, which leads us back to…

Ask yourself: Why was the "interim explanation" of Panspermia even proposed in the first place if all of the evidence here pointed to life originating here by chance, natural processes…?

(And again, so as not to upset anyone, please note that I copy and pasted the above quote from an earlier post)

All I am trying to do is discuss the issues – putting forward what I consider to be relevant – just as you desire to do Bowman.

But I was putting my own thoughts forward or correctly citing in the instances when I was not. I expected you and anyone else on this board to do the same.

I think I detect a subtle ad hominem attack…

Bowman: I can't speak for others, but I'm sorry if I don't meet your high standards for the discussion of scientific matters, and I'm sorry if I don't have your academic qualifications, and I'm even sorry that my questions and differing beliefs irritate you.

However, I am of the belief that once someone begins to attack the man and not his argument… well that someone has begun to lose the argument.

So, putting that thought aside, I'll bring us back on topic. My question was:

Can you and I at least agree that the well established, well understood science of chemistry is able to give us definitive answers on the subject of abiogenesis?

As I noted, the chemistry must add up (and probably the thermodynamics as well I would presume) and it is my conclusion (having read a lot on the subject from BOTH creationist and non-creationist sources) that it doesn't.

As I said, therein is the problem for abiogenesis as I see it.

If it can be deduced that the probability of abiogenesis occurring by purely natural means is effectively zero, then any evolutionary explanation of life and how it proceeded to evolve is simply "dead in the water even before it starts". Put simply: No life = no biological evolution.

Bowman, when it comes to abiogenesis, I regularly see this type of argument/comment:

Life exists. How it originated is unknown, but because it exists, abiogenesis must have occurred (implying that it happened somehow, somewhere, sometime, perhaps even out there in space somewhere and was then delivered to Earth by meteorite somehow).

I ask you: Is this really a "scientific" explanation of abiogenesis?

There is a scientific answer, and it lies in the chemistry. The question we must ask is: Does Chemistry support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?

Bowman: I can't speak for others, but I'm sorry if I don't meet your high standards for the discussion of scientific matters, and I'm sorry if I don't have your academic qualifications, and I'm even sorry that my questions and differing beliefs irritate you

It's got nothing to do with any of that. It's got to do with the intellectual dishonesty of plagerizing dubious websites and then passing it off as your own ideas and arguments. I got this from TJ Raymond too. Seems to be SOP with Creationists.

Not interested. Have a nice day.

Oh for pity sake. What a load of nonsense Bowman. Your post above clearly indicates that your argument has now been reduced to attacking me, not my argument.

Now, what was it that I said exactly? I said this…

There is a scientific answer, and it lies in the chemistry. The question we must ask is: Does Chemistry support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?

Clearly, if the chemistry did in fact support the idea of abiogenesis, then you would have presented that line of evidence. Instead, sadly, what we see is a cheap shot at me and then…

Not interested. Have a nice day.

Yep, you have a "nice day" too Bowman…

Oh, a PS: Of course we never, ever see the "intellectual dishonesty of plagiarizing dubious websites and then passing it off as their own ideas and arguments" here do we…? LovvL

If you plagiarise, then being called a plagiarist is NOT an ad hominum attack.

Bowman: It is clear that your argument has been reduced to attacking me, not my argument.

Ignoring that fact, why do you seem to be avoiding this…

There is a scientific answer, and it lies in the chemistry. The question we must ask is: Does Chemistry support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?

Now, it is apparent to me that you are well versed in matters, and as such, should surely be able to answer the question. So, does the chemistry involved support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not? It's a simple question.

link

RNA at hydrothermal vents is an interesting hypothesis.

Bowman: It is clear that your argument has been reduced to attacking me…..

You haven't been attacked, you've been called out. There is a difference that you can't discern.

……not my argument.

You don't have an argument, you have a meaningless question: "So, does the chemistry involved support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?" My answer is, "Why wouldn't it?"

You haven't been attacked, you've been called out. There is a difference that you can't discern.

Oh for pity sake Bowman. Not attacking me, eh?

Moving on – I didn't ask "Why wouldn't it?", I asked "Does it?"… and you avoid an answer to the question yet again.

Oh for pity sake Bowman. Not attacking me, eh?

Sorry you don't get it. I can't explain it any simpler.

Moving on – I didn't ask "Why wouldn't it?", I asked "Does it?"… and you avoid an answer to the question yet again.

Read it again. I answered you. What's wrong with my answer?

Well, true, you did give me an answer – but as usual, you didn't actually answer the question.

So again, and to be clear, the question I put forward was this:

"Does the chemistry involved support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?"

It is a question that can actually be answered with a yes or answered with a no. It is clear that you are avoiding such a yes or no answer. Why I ask? Well, the answer to that is quite obvious.

If you answer yes, then we can proceed to see if that is actually the case; examine the research into the chemistry involved; see if the chemistry involved actually does support the idea of abiogenesis. Your avoidance of the yes answer implies that it probably doesn't.

However, if you answer no … well as I have noted before, then "any evolutionary explanation of life and how it proceeded is clearly dead in the water even before it starts".

So Bowman, is it yes, or is it no?

(Something tells me that a yes or no answer will be avoided yet again)

What does "chemistry involved" mean? You've used it twice and I don't understand it.

Your avoidance of the yes answer implies that it probably doesn't.

Don't flatter yourself. I've avoided answering you because your question is stupid and meaningless. Rephrase it. If I asked you, "Does the chemistry involved support the idea of ice cream?", would that make any sense to you? Oh ya, only answer yes or no.

…….well as I have noted before, then "any evolutionary explanation of life and how it proceeded is clearly dead in the water even before it starts".

This statement clearly shows you do not know what you are asking about. You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. You've had this explained to you before, upstream. Thanks for not bothering to read my replies. But you expect me to read your badgering and respond.

What does "chemistry involved" mean? You've used it twice and I don't understand it.

Oh, please don't tell me you're playing the "I don't understand" card Bowman – we all know you're smarter than that and know exactly what I mean – and as noted, you keep avoiding an answer to the question.

You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

Really? I would be curious to know how biological evolution can proceed if there is no biology present for it to proceed with…

But you expect me to read your badgering and respond.

Badgering…? Sigh. No, just looking for an honest answer to an honest question from a smart and (hopefully) honest person.

Wong mammal Bowman, you're looking for the Sealion

Really? I would be curious to know how biological evolution can proceed if there is no biology present for it to proceed with…

Ya, really. QED.

…..and as noted, you keep avoiding an answer to the question.

Then note away. "….and as noted, you keep avoiding an answer to a stupid question." There…..fixed that for you. I honestly don't know what you are asking. If you are interested in a response please rephrase it in such a manner that allows me to do so.

@Martin. Lol! And you are correct! He is a sealion!

… and we see Bowman, yet again, unwilling to answer the question, and instead proceed to propose that the question is quote "stupid" unquote whilst giving no reason or reasons as to why.

Then Martin pops in with the "sea lion" cartoon – curious, I've never ran into that term before Martin.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the cartoon is basically correct – me as the sea lion – Bowman as the man – and if you note, the man in the cartoon also keeps avoiding discussing his opinion, gives no reason or reasons for his opinion… just as Bowman keeps doing.

Via Wikipedia (one mustn't plagiarize must one):

Q.E.D. (also written QED) is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "what was to be demonstrated", or, less formally, "thus it has been demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when the original proposition has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

Bowman: Are you now saying the subject of abiogenesis (chemical evolution) is not a scientific subject but a "philosophical argument" and has been "proved"? Surely you jest.

From memory, this is the Science thread. We should be discussing the empirical science involved in abiogenesis, not getting all philosophical.

So, Bowman; will you answer the question?

"Does the chemistry involved support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?"

1) It's the woman that gets harrassed in the comic, not the man. If you got the two non-sealion characters mixed up…

For a succinct definition as to why sealioning is bad,
link

Sealioning is not predicated upon any implicit understanding of public/private space, but upon the premise that the asker is "sincere" and therefore all resources possible *must* be immediately diverted to teaching them, immediately. The resources that they could, with minimal effort find, are not the issue. They demand attention – your attention. All of it. RIGHT NOW. And they have no intention of listening, because it's your job to make them understand. It is a specific form of harassment. You may not look away, or point them to a link. You must spend all your time and energy. This isn't a sincere attempt at anythinging. It's a calculated technique to grind an opponent down.

Ghecko, you totally missed the sealion bit and you totally, totally missed the point of the QED comment.

As for your:

Bowman: Are you now saying the subject of abiogenesis (chemical evolution) is not a scientific subject but a "philosophical argument" and has been "proved"? Surely you jest.

All I can say is, "as was demonstrated". Amply.

And this is the first time (since my U days, oh, these so many years gone by…) that I've seen "Russell's Teapot" invoked! Well played, Martin!

"Does the chemistry involved support the idea of abiogenesis or does it not?"

Since you have to have everything explained to you directly, let me take a stab at this:

What does "chemistry involved" actually mean? This is the second time I've asked this. I got no response from you the first time as you clearly think this is a brilliant question that only requires a yes or no answer.

Does it mean the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of a post-Hadean Earth as we understood it in the 1950's at the time the Miller-Urey experiment occurred?

Does it mean the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of a post-Hadean Earth as we understood it in the intervening decades when the Miller-Urey experiments were further duplicated and refined?

Does it mean the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of a post-Hadean Earth as we understand it now, to the best of our abilities?

Does it mean the actual chemistry and atmospheric conditions of the post-Hadean Earth as it existed then? This is something that we really don't fully understand as of yet.

Or finally, does it mean the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of a post-Hadean Earth together with the chemical seeding from comets, meteorites and bits of Mars added to the mix? Again, our understanding of this is incomplete.

What are you actually asking?

You have a dreary habit of stating things that clearly show that you do not understand the concepts involved. For example:

…….subject of abiogenesis (chemical evolution)….

Chemical evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Chemicals do not "evolve" in the sense that living things do. Star systems also evolve, but no where near in the same way as living things do. Many objects evolve, or change over time, but the mechanisms of evolution are distinctly separate for living things. Do not conflate them.

Oh for pity sake. Bowman, I cannot believe that you said:

Chemical evolution is not abiogenesis.

From Wikipedia (for one doesn't want to plagiarize does one):

Abiogenesis (British English: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsᵻs, -ˌbaɪə-/, /-ˌbiːoʊ-, -ˌbiːə-/[1][2][3][4]), biopoiesis,[5] \by-o-po-ee-sis\ or informally, the origin of life,[6][7][8] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][7][9][10] Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.[11]

I believe you have been corrected. Moving on, you said:

What does "chemistry involved" actually mean? …etc, etc, etc… Or finally, does it mean the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of a post-Hadean Earth together with the chemical seeding from comets, meteorites and bits of Mars added to the mix? Again, our understanding of this is incomplete.

This clearly shows that you actually did understand my question all along, and so we can presume that you have been deliberately avoiding discussing it – which in fact you have been.

And what exactly does "incomplete" mean in the context of your statement?

It could mean anything from "they know next to nothing" to "extremely little" to "some" to "lots" to "almost all" of the actual chemistry involved as to how abiogenesis occurred.

So, how "incomplete" is it exactly?

If it were for the most part, let's say, "complete", then you would not have avoided discussing the problems with the chemistry involved.

Bowman: It's been clear all along that you actually do know how "incomplete" the chemistry explaining abiogenesis is – how little they actually do know and are sure of – and that is why you (and from what I've seen, evolutionists in general) always avoid discussing the actual details of it.

Why do they avoid it? The answer is quite simple really. As I have pointed out previously – if you do not have any biological life to start with, then clearly you do not have any biological life for the "processes" of biological evolution to act upon. That's why you said:

Evolution is not abiogenesis.

Bowman: It's a simple concept to grasp really – no life; no biological evolution… and how that life came about is deeply rooted in Chemistry.

Bowman: It's clear that you will never agree that abiogenesis could not occur in any way, shape or form via natural processes, so I see no need to continue this discussion. No doubt you will agree, so all the best.

From Wikipedia (for one doesn't want to plagiarize does one):

Joke if you must but misrepresenting your thoughts via plagerizing other people's writings is not a virtue.

I believe you have been corrected.

No, and to the contrary if you read a little further I stated that abiogenesis is not chemical evolution in the same sense as biological evolution. This is important as you seem to conflate separate concepts. Your Wiki quote actually supports that claim.

This clearly shows that you actually did understand my question all along, and so we can presume that you have been deliberately avoiding discussing it – which in fact you have been.

No, and again to the contrary, I found your question confusing and I told you to rephrase it at least three times in the course of our discussion. You chose not to.

And what exactly does "incomplete" mean in the context of your statement?

Happy to oblige. Incomplete, as in not complete, partial, lacking in completeness, unfinished, not whole, etc.

So, how "incomplete" is it exactly?

Couldn't tell you. No shame in stating that.

Bowman: It's been clear all along that you actually do know how "incomplete" the chemistry explaining abiogenesis is – how little they actually do know and are sure of – and that is why you (and from what I've seen, evolutionists in general) always avoid discussing the actual details of it.

I'd love to discuss this with someone who earnestly wishes to honestly to exchange information. But you were sealioning instead.

"Sealioning is the name given to a specific, pervasive form of aggressive cluelessness, that masquerades as a sincere desire to understand."

link

link

Bowman: It's a simple concept to grasp really – no life; no biological evolution… and how that life came about is deeply rooted in Chemistry.

Apparently it's not that simple. The two concepts are separate, and you clearly conflate them. The means by which life arises is separate from the means by which life diversifies. I'm sorry you can't see that.

It's clear that you will never agree that abiogenesis could not occur in any way, shape or form via natural processes….

Why should I, given you haven't provided any compelling evidence to the contrary.

……I see no need to continue this discussion. No doubt you will agree, so all the best.

I agree. If you are still interested, look up the old discussions with TJ Raymond. He also couldn't differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution and we tried to explain it to him back then. YMMV, as they say.