@KellyJay
Who says it was random? The only random I hear is the original prebiotics in a continuous chemical experiment going on billions of years ago where asteroids seeded early Earth with a lot of organic molecules that got cooked into more complex molecules one experiment at a time, experiments that didn't need a mind to produce.
Of course the religious set is totally free to believe a god invented the LAWS of chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics to ALLOW our universe to be amenable to life, Notice that word begins with Amen....
@sonhouse saidRandom or ordered are quite different from syntax which has information stored that gets transmitted received translated to do specific tasks. You actually believe an operating biological system would arise through continuous experiments?
@KellyJay
Who says it was random? The only random I hear is the original prebiotics in a continuous chemical experiment going on billions of years ago where asteroids seeded early Earth with a lot of organic molecules that got cooked into more complex molecules one experiment at a time, experiments that didn't need a mind to produce.
Of course the religious set is totally ...[text shortened]... uantum mechanics to ALLOW our universe to be amenable to life, Notice that word begins with Amen....
That would mean you require a source of the proper material that would be able to continuously work towards that end. That is not logical because once the chemicals react you lose your starting material so exactly how do you overcome that?
It’s been pointed out before if all of the necessary components are not present in a life friendly environment the clock doesn’t tick as opportunity for success is completely absent.
Have you watched the rest of the talk, he goes into great detail about chemical reactions even dealing with comets.
@KellyJay
I can't find which thread the talk is in, I have time now to watch the second half but again that speech was decades ago and now we have actual samples of comets sent back to Earth and they are showing a LOT more organics than ever thought of back then.
@sonhouse said?
@KellyJay
I can't find which thread the talk is in, I have time now to watch the second half but again that speech was decades ago and now we have actual samples of comets sent back to Earth and they are showing a LOT more organics than ever thought of back then.
Did you get as far as the study of a Murchison Meteorite consulting with Stanley Miller (Miller Urey) on how to look at finding the chemicals that fell to earth in the meteorite, or the Maillard Reaction?
@KellyJay
He uses phrases that don't match what the printed word of his box shows, like If we are honest. Not in the words in the box, an effort in my mind to program the audience. And not knowing the conditions existing 4 billion years ago except we know early on it was molten rock from repeated hits by large asteroids and comets and the leading theory of how the moon formed is a planet something like the size of Mars crashed into Earth and the ejecta flew out hundreds of thousands of miles into space which coalesced to be the moon. There is some evidence of that in analysis of Earth's core, which is not a nice globular mass in the center but oblong with bits floating about still where the core is much bigger than it should be according to work done simulating Earth coalescing from many collisions of asteroids and comets and such.
Anyway, the use of phases like 'we are fooling ourselves' indicates clearly he wants science to just admit the only way we can see life coming out of mud is to assume 'intelligent' design.
But like I have said before, his remarks and agenda comes from nearly 30 years ago and a lot of progress has been made on life origins and of course I know full well we don't know the answers yet but science advances very rapidly in century 21, much faster than century 20 or 19.
So there is no need to just ASSUME intelligence created our form of life.
For instance, as it sits right now it is beyond science to prove one way or the other intelligent design was or was not the way life came about and the implication of his talk is forget science, you will forever get nowhere and just believe.
But that is not how science proceeds, science proceeds through advances in measurement technology and that is proceeding at a prodigious rate so it is arrogant of that dude and all the other intelligent design folks to just SAY forget it GODDIDIT and that is it and any scientist looking for life origin is doomed to failure, in spite of the fact they know next to nothing about conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago, as far as how benign Earth turned into and just what reactions took place back then. In the meantime life sciences go, we don't know but we still push forward making discoveries and some day maybe we WILL know but for now, we keep working on the problem.
I didn't see any reference to an asteroid. But now we have information he never dreamed of, actual bits of an actual asteroid brought back to Earth.
Which is just another step on the road to figuring out where we came from.
Just SAYING GODDIDIT is not science it is arrogance.
@sonhouse saidMurchison Meteorite I now have doubts you have actually listen to it.
@KellyJay
He uses phrases that don't match what the printed word of his box shows, like If we are honest. Not in the words in the box, an effort in my mind to program the audience. And not knowing the conditions existing 4 billion years ago except we know early on it was molten rock from repeated hits by large asteroids and comets and the leading theory of how the moon form ...[text shortened]... n the road to figuring out where we came from.
Just SAYING GODDIDIT is not science it is arrogance.
@sonhouse saidYou can make up whatever you want to justify yourself, but he gave you the chemistry and talked about what we see and how what we see comes about looking at what chemistry does. If you want to make something up to dismiss the science of chemistry by all means, if you want to make something up and suggest chemistry would have behaved differently on some time in the distant past, give your reasoning, unless that too falls into things you are making up.
@KellyJay
So how did I know he said 'If we are honest'? I couldn't make that up.
@KellyJay
He gave us 30 year old chemistry. We have moved way beyond that in the meantime. like finding evidence of life on Earth hundreds of millions of years earlier than originally though which blows holes in the not enough time argument.
Now they are even finding evidence of the molecules of life in the clouds of Venus, Phosphine and ammonia and they are hard pressed to figure out how non life can generate those two molecules and James Webb scope detected possible Dimethyl sulfate which seems only to be made by life forms but that in a planet around a star some 12 light years from Earth.
Tell me where in that talk he even mentions those three molecules in relation to life.
@sonhouse
He spent a lot of time on the Miller experiment and tried to show how that didn't generate peptides and such, then makes the sweeping statement you can now see how that could not make prebiotics and the like, ignoring the fact that experiment ran for a few weeks max whereas real life took hundreds of millions of natural experiments of combinations leading to the first cells.
He also says there was no way for cell membranes to evolve from mud or some such but here is newer research refuting that directly:
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-team-uncovers-universal-code-formation.html
This blows yet another hole in the folks denying abiogenisis
This is Exactly what I meant when I said he was 30 years behind science and he is a good scientist no doubt but last century.
@sonhouse saidHe gave chemistry you believe chemistry reactions differ today from 30 years ago, that was one of the main points chemical reactions today are no different from one point in time to another.
@KellyJay
He gave us 30 year old chemistry. We have moved way beyond that in the meantime. like finding evidence of life on Earth hundreds of millions of years earlier than originally though which blows holes in the not enough time argument.
Now they are even finding evidence of the molecules of life in the clouds of Venus, Phosphine and ammonia and they are hard pressed t ...[text shortened]... from Earth.
Tell me where in that talk he even mentions those three molecules in relation to life.
Making a claim like that is suggesting an experiment under the same conditions with the same material will not give the same results all things being equal.
You are barking up the wrong tree!
@KellyJay
The latest result is a rerun of the miller experiment but in the real world.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/lightning-had-difficulty-forming-in-early-earths-atmosphere
These kind of experiments don't run a few thousand volts like Miller, MILLIONS of votes in the real world.
Data not available 30 years ago.