Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

Composition and transformation of substance.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#81  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 12:45 pm

byofrcs wrote:
When you are asking for "fossils" then you are asking for something from an undefined grey area of organic chemistry dating somewhere about 3.5 Billion years ago. The onus is on you to first identify which pigeon-hole that you want evidence for.

Where did I say I want evidence?
I said there isn't any.
If you agree that there is no evidence of Abiogenesis in the fossil record, then we've nothing more to ponder on this matter.

However if you disagree, then the onus in on you to present the evidence.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#82  Postby Rumraket » Apr 13, 2010 1:00 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
You are setting an almost impossible standard. Whatever direct evidence of abiogenesis there was is surely lost now. I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances required to fossilize and preserve protocellular material for >3500 million years in the earth's ever changing crust.


Not 'almost'. It is impossible to find evidence that isn't there.
All the evidence that we have is for a Biotic Period, abeit a very early Biotic Period.
According to the Postulate, there was a period of 100-500 million years wherein life arose from the 'Prebiotic Soup' - but there is no evidence of the broth, not a noodle.


So you actually agree that you have set an impossible standard in asking for direct evidence for abiogenesis?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12559
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#83  Postby byofrcs » Apr 13, 2010 1:03 pm

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
When you are asking for "fossils" then you are asking for something from an undefined grey area of organic chemistry dating somewhere about 3.5 Billion years ago. The onus is on you to first identify which pigeon-hole that you want evidence for.

Where did I say I want evidence?
I said there isn't any.
If you agree that there is no evidence of Abiogenesis in the fossil record, then we've nothing more to ponder on this matter.

However if you disagree, then the onus in on you to present the evidence.


You did say ...."Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis." What would that even look like then ?.

We're pretty confident that there were no living things immediately after the formation of the Earth and we're pretty confident that there are living things on Earth today so we unless we can define something as the "non-living-living", which is mutually exclusive, it is impossible to give a fossil per se but it will be possible to show the pathways between the non-living and living.

This is what these papers are addressing. They form the fossil evidence, albeit incomplete at this time.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#84  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 1:11 pm

byofrcs wrote:
You did say ...."Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis." What would that even look like then ?.


You want me to describe something that doesn't exist?
Surely you must realise that the question is absurd?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#85  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 1:13 pm

Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
You are setting an almost impossible standard. Whatever direct evidence of abiogenesis there was is surely lost now. I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances required to fossilize and preserve protocellular material for >3500 million years in the earth's ever changing crust.


Not 'almost'. It is impossible to find evidence that isn't there.
All the evidence that we have is for a Biotic Period, abeit a very early Biotic Period.
According to the Postulate, there was a period of 100-500 million years wherein life arose from the 'Prebiotic Soup' - but there is no evidence of the broth, not a noodle.


So you actually agree that you have set an impossible standard in asking for direct evidence for abiogenesis?

Yep.
How about indirect evidence, like for the 'Primordial Soup'?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#86  Postby byofrcs » Apr 13, 2010 1:21 pm

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
You did say ...."Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis." What would that even look like then ?.


You want me to describe something that doesn't exist?
Surely you must realise that the question is absurd?


Then next time don't ask for something that is absurd. The chemical processes described in these and other papers form the basis of the evidence unless you want to argue that uniformitarianism does not apply.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#87  Postby dinkum » Apr 13, 2010 1:23 pm

rainbow wrote:
dinkum wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Those 78 papers themselves constitute evidence. They don't present the whole picture, but they are evidence nonetheless. To say that you have no evidence is simply bullshit.

But when one hasn't actually read the said papers, one can technically say that one has no evidence. One need simply skim the titles, glean a common thread (the same sciency word in two titles), hit Wikipedia for ten minutes and quibble on vapid bullshit.

I suggest then that you read the papers.
When you've done so, please show us the particular piece of evidence for Abiogenesis that YOU consider to be particularly compelling.
Thanks.


Pathetic.

The point is that you are claiming that there is no evidence for abiogenesis in these papers, when it's stupidly obvious that you have not read them. Here's a helpful, time-saving tip: they're not tattooed on the inside of your colon.

rainbow wrote:
Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis.


rainbow wrote:
Where did I say I want evidence?


Nice own goal, there. Keep up the good work.
Thanks.
User avatar
dinkum
 
Posts: 120
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#88  Postby Rumraket » Apr 13, 2010 1:24 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
You are setting an almost impossible standard. Whatever direct evidence of abiogenesis there was is surely lost now. I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances required to fossilize and preserve protocellular material for >3500 million years in the earth's ever changing crust.


Not 'almost'. It is impossible to find evidence that isn't there.
All the evidence that we have is for a Biotic Period, abeit a very early Biotic Period.
According to the Postulate, there was a period of 100-500 million years wherein life arose from the 'Prebiotic Soup' - but there is no evidence of the broth, not a noodle.


So you actually agree that you have set an impossible standard in asking for direct evidence for abiogenesis?

Yep.
How about indirect evidence, like for the 'Primordial Soup'?


Before we can try and look for indirect evidence, we must first define what that would be. In the case of Primordial Soup, what is that, specifically?
This is where many of these papers become relevant. Some of them deal with possible abiotic synthesis of various relevant monomers, others talk about actual findings in meteors, rocks, hydrothermal vents etc.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12559
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#89  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 1:30 pm

byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
You did say ...."Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis." What would that even look like then ?.


You want me to describe something that doesn't exist?
Surely you must realise that the question is absurd?


Then next time don't ask for something that is absurd.

Next time just agree with me that there is no fossil evidence to support Abiogenesis, and we'll save some time.

The chemical processes described in these and other papers form the basis of the evidence unless you want to argue that uniformitarianism does not apply.

Heavens forbid!
What do you mean by 'uniformitarianism'?
...and how is its application relevant?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#90  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 1:38 pm

Rumraket wrote:

Before we can try and look for indirect evidence, we must first define what that would be. In the case of Primordial Soup, what is that, specifically?

Well according to some hypotheses, the early earth was awash with high concentrations of organic compounds.
Now depending on which hypothesis you believe, these compounds differ, as does their origin.
As I don't know which is your favourite, and I've no favourite, I can't really point to the hypothesis for which we are looking for supporting evidence. Can I?

Your choice.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#91  Postby byofrcs » Apr 13, 2010 1:45 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
You are setting an almost impossible standard. Whatever direct evidence of abiogenesis there was is surely lost now. I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances required to fossilize and preserve protocellular material for >3500 million years in the earth's ever changing crust.


Not 'almost'. It is impossible to find evidence that isn't there.
All the evidence that we have is for a Biotic Period, abeit a very early Biotic Period.
According to the Postulate, there was a period of 100-500 million years wherein life arose from the 'Prebiotic Soup' - but there is no evidence of the broth, not a noodle.


So you actually agree that you have set an impossible standard in asking for direct evidence for abiogenesis?

Yep.
How about indirect evidence, like for the 'Primordial Soup'?


That would be a meal long since consumed but the stains don't seem to have wasted out.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#92  Postby Rumraket » Apr 13, 2010 1:57 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

Before we can try and look for indirect evidence, we must first define what that would be. In the case of Primordial Soup, what is that, specifically?

Well according to some hypotheses, the early earth was awash with high concentrations of organic compounds.
Now depending on which hypothesis you believe, these compounds differ, as does their origin.
As I don't know which is your favourite, and I've no favourite, I can't really point to the hypothesis for which we are looking for supporting evidence. Can I?

Your choice.

Well I can't really pick one either.
The best I can do is more or less to try and read up on what the "general consensus" in abiogenesis research is, if there even is such a thing. I actually don't think there is.

It seems to me there are a number of different extant hypothesis undergoing research in various labs.
The Szostak lab seems to do some kind of pre-RNA->RNA-world thing, with some Lipid-world stuff thrown in. This is also the hypothesis I have read the most about. There are various scenarios involved in this hypothesis and several parts of it have gathered some, in my opinion, compelling experimental support.

It is not my understanding that this specific hypothesis rests on an assumption that "the early earth was awash with high concentrations of organic compounds". In fact, it seems it is quite often stated that there are concentration problems and therefore abiotically plausible mechanisms for enhancing these concentrations is one of many areas undergoing active research. The porous microstructure/thermal convection coloumn is one of those hypothesised solutions. I have read of several versions of these concentration-issue resolving hypothesis.

I can't tell you what's best and I'm not an authority on the subject.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12559
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#93  Postby rainbow » Apr 13, 2010 2:57 pm

Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

Before we can try and look for indirect evidence, we must first define what that would be. In the case of Primordial Soup, what is that, specifically?

Well according to some hypotheses, the early earth was awash with high concentrations of organic compounds.
Now depending on which hypothesis you believe, these compounds differ, as does their origin.
As I don't know which is your favourite, and I've no favourite, I can't really point to the hypothesis for which we are looking for supporting evidence. Can I?

Your choice.

Well I can't really pick one either.
The best I can do is more or less to try and read up on what the "general consensus" in abiogenesis research is, if there even is such a thing. I actually don't think there is.


Perhaps then you can appreciate my irritation with people that wave at the 78 Papers, and state that the evidence is there, when these papers represent very diverse hypotheses wrt. Abiogenesis.
I can identify half-a-dozen scenarios, and they have some laboratory work to show that they are possible.
...but they cannot be all correct.
Therefore which evidence of possibility do we take?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#94  Postby Rumraket » Apr 13, 2010 4:12 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

Before we can try and look for indirect evidence, we must first define what that would be. In the case of Primordial Soup, what is that, specifically?

Well according to some hypotheses, the early earth was awash with high concentrations of organic compounds.
Now depending on which hypothesis you believe, these compounds differ, as does their origin.
As I don't know which is your favourite, and I've no favourite, I can't really point to the hypothesis for which we are looking for supporting evidence. Can I?

Your choice.

Well I can't really pick one either.
The best I can do is more or less to try and read up on what the "general consensus" in abiogenesis research is, if there even is such a thing. I actually don't think there is.


Perhaps then you can appreciate my irritation with people that wave at the 78 Papers, and state that the evidence is there, when these papers represent very diverse hypotheses wrt. Abiogenesis.
I can identify half-a-dozen scenarios, and they have some laboratory work to show that they are possible.
...but they cannot be all correct.
Therefore which evidence of possibility do we take?


First of all, it seems most of those 88 papers lend support to a preRNA->RNA world hypothesis. There are papers on the formation of ribonucleotides, oligomers and polymers under various conditions. There are papers on the evolvability of simple self-replicators.
Another large portion of them seems to deal with abiotic amino-acid formations. This could also be relevant for the evolution of the first lifeforms in an RNA-world when they propapbly didn't start out with the ability to synthesise these themselves(since this already requires complex genetic and protein machinery).
There are several papers on actual evidence for the existence of various relevant(to an RNA world) organic compounds in ancient rocks, meteorites, interstellar dust etc. etc.
There are a few papers discussing the formation of lipids, which can also be relevant to an RNA world model.
It actually fits quite well together if you bothered to look at it a little more than just the titles. Tie this in with many other papers that have been discussed on this site and elsewhere, and it actually seems like there is substantial support for something like a preRNA->RNA world.
If someone points you to these papers and states there is evidence here, it's because there is.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12559
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#95  Postby Nautilidae » Apr 13, 2010 4:13 pm

rainbow wrote:
Perhaps then you can appreciate my irritation with people that wave at the 78 Papers, and state that the evidence is there, when these papers represent very diverse hypotheses wrt. Abiogenesis.
I can identify half-a-dozen scenarios, and they have some laboratory work to show that they are possible.
...but they cannot be all correct.
Therefore which evidence of possibility do we take?


Why not? Multiple genesis is quite an interesting hypothesis.
User avatar
Nautilidae
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4224
Age: 23
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#96  Postby rainbow » Apr 14, 2010 7:55 am

Rumraket wrote:
First of all, it seems most of those 88 papers lend support to a preRNA->RNA world hypothesis. There are papers on the formation of ribonucleotides, oligomers and polymers under various conditions. There are papers on the evolvability of simple self-replicators.

I don't think that most do, but I'd agree that this is the most favoured hypothesis today.
Can we then reject any papers on Lipid World, Metabolism First, Protein First as not being evidence?

Another large portion of them seems to deal with abiotic amino-acid formations. This could also be relevant for the evolution of the first lifeforms in an RNA-world when they propapbly didn't start out with the ability to synthesise these themselves(since this already requires complex genetic and protein machinery).

The RNA world didn't need amino-acids. It follows that none of these papers provide any evidence for an RNA-world.

There are several papers on actual evidence for the existence of various relevant(to an RNA world) organic compounds in ancient rocks, meteorites, interstellar dust etc. etc.


These I've missed to my shame and embarrassment. Please point to these papers.

There are a few papers discussing the formation of lipids, which can also be relevant to an RNA world model.
It actually fits quite well together if you bothered to look at it a little more than just the titles.

I've read them, and you know I've read them since we've actually discussed the details of these papers in another thread.
Your comment is quite unneccessary.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#97  Postby hackenslash » Apr 14, 2010 8:05 am

Ah, the old divide and conquer tactic, eh? Good work.

No, those papers that are supportive of other models cannot be dismissed just because they don't support RNA-world. Abiogenesis is an active area of research, and all hypotheses are supported to some degree. All the papers stand as evidence for the various steps in the various hypotheses. There is not one single hypothesis, and nor should there be, until or unless it can be shown that only one mechanism for the arisal of life from abiotic roots is possible. Those papers still constitute a single body of evidence for abiogenesis, much as you'd love to reduce it for your own dogmatic purposes.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21158
Age: 48
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#98  Postby rainbow » Apr 14, 2010 8:35 am

hackenslash wrote:Ah, the old divide and conquer tactic, eh? Good work.


Don't blame me if some of these papers contradict other papers. I didn't write them.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#99  Postby hackenslash » Apr 14, 2010 8:52 am

It isn't actually a problem. Guth and Turok contradict each other as well. Which, if either, of their hypotheses actually reflects reality remains to be seen. It could well be that elements of both are true, or neither. That's why they're active areas of research. The same is true of competing hypotheses in abiogenesis. I'm still not sure why you think this is remotely a defeating argument. It isn't.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21158
Age: 48
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#100  Postby Rumraket » Apr 14, 2010 8:57 am

rainbow wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Ah, the old divide and conquer tactic, eh? Good work.


Don't blame me if some of these papers contradict other papers. I didn't write them.


None of these papers actually contradict each other. Do you wish to point out these contradictions?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12559
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Chemistry

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest