8 ms·

That's not correct. There's no scientific theory of abiogenesis, because we haven't elucidated the entire pathway and developed falsifiable methods of determini

by ABCLAW 9y ago

That's not correct. There's no scientific theory of abiogenesis, because we haven't elucidated the entire pathway and developed falsifiable methods of determining which of the various models is correct, but there certainly is a theory of abiogenesis. In fact, the theory is so well developed that there isn't really a competing scientific explanation to explain how life ultimately arose other than through abiogenesis. The area of research has been fairly fertile, to the point that many of the findings in that field have spun off into their own areas of research, from their original pursuit of the origins of life.

aaronblohowiak 9y ago
>to the point that many of the findings in that field have spun off into their own areas of research, from their original pursuit of the origins of life. That sounds fascinating. Can you give some examples?
oldandtired 9y ago
If there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis then there can be no theory so well developed that there is no competing scientific explanation. If it isn't science in the first place, it can't be science in the second place. Abiogenesis and evolution as complementary ideas and its competition of intelligent design are philosophical standpoints attempting to portray themselves as science. They are metaphysical. A simple example of one of the current evolutionary ideas is that there is much "junk" dna within each lifeform. If this is so, then with the current technology, we should be able to edit this "junk" dna out of the chromosomal dna structure and still be able to have fully viable lifeforms that breed true and are fully compatible for the pre-edited lifeforms. if there is 80% "junk", we should be able to edit this 80% out with no ill side-effects. If it turns out that we can't edit this "junk" out without causing non-viability or ill side-effects that that dna was not "junk" in the first place. Over all the hundreds of millions of species existing on this planet, we should be able to find all sorts of species that are in transition forms (having partially functional organs or forms) today. You can make all sorts of claims about what has happened in the past, especially when you cannot actually test those living organisms in the lab.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  That isn't true. Feel free to tell me what the alternative theories that constitute competition to abiogenesis. The alternatives are pretty much 1) a deity or 2) some mythical life force assembled things. Abiogenesis has a ton of evidence behind it, but we do not have the entire chain of conditions and reactions required to go from primordial molecules to actual fact. Much in the same way that 'AI' vanishes, as we develop evidence and establish facts that support abiogenesis, they become standard biology, chemistry or physics. Compare the argument for abiogenesis in the 1800s to the one today. We've discovered the mechanism for generating our species from single celled life forms, we've determined that RNA have intrinsic catalytic ability, we've developed robust theories of non-equilibrium reaction processes. As for your statement about junk DNA, you have a very limited understanding of what that actually refers to. Junk DNA refers to non-coding dna. We know those areas can influence chromatin structure, contain regulated control sequences which influence gene expression, contain splicing sequences, etc. As for your last paragraph, you make it very clear you don't understand the subject you're talking about. I suggest doing more than reading pop science books and picking up a volume on molecular biology. It will clear up what I imagine are a legion of misconceptions you have about what we know.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    What is not true? You made one statement then you made a contradictory statement. It matters not that neither of the alternatives that you supplied are palatable to your thinking processes. You cannot prove the veracity of your belief system by any scientific method as they are metaphysical in nature. As I pointed out above, try listen to James Tour and you will see much of your "ton of evidence" is really evidence. It is conjecture and may have some evidential value, but on the basis of actual processes, the "evidence" just doesn't stack up. We have in no way discovered the mechanism for turning single celled lifeforms into our species. If we had, we should have no problems in doing this from any sample of single cell lifeforms other than our own. We can't and we don't. I don't consider any of the dna to be junk. I am using the definitions as promulgated by those who ascribe to the idea of "junk" dna. By your own definition as given above, this means that the relevant "junk" dna is not "junk". As for my last paragraph, it is a consequence of the evolutionary model. You can argue that it is not a consequence of the model but then you would be arguing against the evolutionary model itself. Since I took a great deal of interest in this area in my younger days and I would read as many of the published experiments as I could. What got me looking at this further was the discrepancy between the reported results of these experiments and the purported conclusions reached by the experimenters. My last sentence is accurate, if you cannot test and reproduce the outcomes/results then it is just conjecture. So with those comments, what is your background, interest and expertise in these areas?

by ABCLAW 9y ago

aaronblohowiak 9y ago

>to the point that many of the findings in that field have spun off into their own areas of research, from their original pursuit of the origins of life. That sounds fascinating. Can you give some examples?

oldandtired 9y ago

If there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis then there can be no theory so well developed that there is no competing scientific explanation. If it isn't science in the first place, it can't be science in the second place. Abiogenesis and evolution as complementary ideas and its competition of intelligent design are philosophical standpoints attempting to portray themselves as science. They are metaphysical. A simple example of one of the current evolutionary ideas is that there is much "junk" dna within each lifeform. If this is so, then with the current technology, we should be able to edit this "junk" dna out of the chromosomal dna structure and still be able to have fully viable lifeforms that breed true and are fully compatible for the pre-edited lifeforms. if there is 80% "junk", we should be able to edit this 80% out with no ill side-effects. If it turns out that we can't edit this "junk" out without causing non-viability or ill side-effects that that dna was not "junk" in the first place. Over all the hundreds of millions of species existing on this planet, we should be able to find all sorts of species that are in transition forms (having partially functional organs or forms) today. You can make all sorts of claims about what has happened in the past, especially when you cannot actually test those living organisms in the lab.

ABCLAW 9y ago
That isn't true. Feel free to tell me what the alternative theories that constitute competition to abiogenesis. The alternatives are pretty much 1) a deity or 2) some mythical life force assembled things. Abiogenesis has a ton of evidence behind it, but we do not have the entire chain of conditions and reactions required to go from primordial molecules to actual fact. Much in the same way that 'AI' vanishes, as we develop evidence and establish facts that support abiogenesis, they become standard biology, chemistry or physics. Compare the argument for abiogenesis in the 1800s to the one today. We've discovered the mechanism for generating our species from single celled life forms, we've determined that RNA have intrinsic catalytic ability, we've developed robust theories of non-equilibrium reaction processes. As for your statement about junk DNA, you have a very limited understanding of what that actually refers to. Junk DNA refers to non-coding dna. We know those areas can influence chromatin structure, contain regulated control sequences which influence gene expression, contain splicing sequences, etc. As for your last paragraph, you make it very clear you don't understand the subject you're talking about. I suggest doing more than reading pop science books and picking up a volume on molecular biology. It will clear up what I imagine are a legion of misconceptions you have about what we know.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  What is not true? You made one statement then you made a contradictory statement. It matters not that neither of the alternatives that you supplied are palatable to your thinking processes. You cannot prove the veracity of your belief system by any scientific method as they are metaphysical in nature. As I pointed out above, try listen to James Tour and you will see much of your "ton of evidence" is really evidence. It is conjecture and may have some evidential value, but on the basis of actual processes, the "evidence" just doesn't stack up. We have in no way discovered the mechanism for turning single celled lifeforms into our species. If we had, we should have no problems in doing this from any sample of single cell lifeforms other than our own. We can't and we don't. I don't consider any of the dna to be junk. I am using the definitions as promulgated by those who ascribe to the idea of "junk" dna. By your own definition as given above, this means that the relevant "junk" dna is not "junk". As for my last paragraph, it is a consequence of the evolutionary model. You can argue that it is not a consequence of the model but then you would be arguing against the evolutionary model itself. Since I took a great deal of interest in this area in my younger days and I would read as many of the published experiments as I could. What got me looking at this further was the discrepancy between the reported results of these experiments and the purported conclusions reached by the experimenters. My last sentence is accurate, if you cannot test and reproduce the outcomes/results then it is just conjecture. So with those comments, what is your background, interest and expertise in these areas?