TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Let us debate the origin of life.
The evidence--what does it show? Let us examine it.
The evidence--what does it show? Let us examine it.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Origin of Life: Let Us Debate It
- Thread starter TheFightingPikachu
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
There are really no tenable hypotheses surrounding the formation of the first life. Every experiment that's been conducted on this wise has been unsurprisingly underwhelming.
What does the evidence show? Tough to answer that one, because the matter of the origin of life appears to be one issue in modern biology rooted entirely in speculation.
What does the evidence show? Tough to answer that one, because the matter of the origin of life appears to be one issue in modern biology rooted entirely in speculation.
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Is It a Theory?
You know, I wanted to ask you this entirely ridiculous question in an earlier debate where you discussed this issue: Is your name Robert Shapiro? Klaus Dose?
I think it is funny how people repeatedly mention viruses in origin of life debates. If a virus were to form from other stuff, it wouldn't be able to replicate! (Profesco: If you read this, I'd like to point out how necessary such a "Public service announcement" is in light of this undying claim that viruses could have existed before and given rise to life.)
I'd also like to say in response to Profesco's point about "manmade environments" that the use of human intelligence in these experiments is something often overlooked by the scientists.
Precisely how would one go about falsifying the idea that life came from non-life without the aid of any intelligence? I am not here stating that such a thing is impossible; I am merely questioning whether it can be called a theory in the scientific sense. Would the scientists accept it if the origin of life turned out to be outside of the scope of science?
Those reasons why it is important that we debate this!
There are really no tenable hypotheses surrounding the formation of the first life. Every experiment that's been conducted on this wise has been unsurprisingly underwhelming.
What does the evidence show? Tough to answer that one, because the matter of the origin of life appears to be one issue in modern biology rooted entirely in speculation.
You know, I wanted to ask you this entirely ridiculous question in an earlier debate where you discussed this issue: Is your name Robert Shapiro? Klaus Dose?
I think it is funny how people repeatedly mention viruses in origin of life debates. If a virus were to form from other stuff, it wouldn't be able to replicate! (Profesco: If you read this, I'd like to point out how necessary such a "Public service announcement" is in light of this undying claim that viruses could have existed before and given rise to life.)
I'd also like to say in response to Profesco's point about "manmade environments" that the use of human intelligence in these experiments is something often overlooked by the scientists.
Most of the public, whether they advocate current ideas of scientists about the origin of life or not, have been given the impression that these experiments do a very good job of approximating natural processes.Profesco said:We also haven't had millions of years during which to perform these experiments.
Precisely how would one go about falsifying the idea that life came from non-life without the aid of any intelligence? I am not here stating that such a thing is impossible; I am merely questioning whether it can be called a theory in the scientific sense. Would the scientists accept it if the origin of life turned out to be outside of the scope of science?
Those reasons why it is important that we debate this!
It would be very anticlimactic if version 2.0 of this thread flumped right out of the gate. FightingPikachu, I'll assume you recreated this thread because you had some kind of point. Please be hasty in getting to it, then. Everything I said in closing the last one remains in effect as of right now. What change are you bringing to the table?
People mention viruses (viri?) because they appear to be a precursor to life. Not technically a living organism, but reproducing. Though I suppose that may turn out to be more about the definition than the actual science, but I don't know enough to make many remarks on it.
So, the mention of viruses is funny, semi-relevant, and apparently an important announcement. Now, TFP, why?
What point are you making? =s
As close as we can currently get, probably, yes. We can't replicate hundreds of millennia, however, having existed ourselves for just a handful.
This is not a theory that has been confirmed, TFP. It's an infant theory at best merely suggested by the small amount of facts we do know. It is one possible theory, and currently the one that best fits our empirical observations. It might even be better to call it a hypothesis at this point in history. More needs to be learned. A scientist does not stop trying to learn just because he doesn't know, nor should he.
And I'll repeat myself. FightingPikachu, your questions and statements combine to announce the lack of information we have about that specific first instance of life in the universe. You point out, subtly or not-so-subtly, that the scientific community presently holds this as its premier hypothesis about the origin of life despite not having the same kind of experimental success as it does with other theories, and that you disagree with that.
That's all fine and good, but it's not a debate. Your posts so far show no point other than ... well, what appears to be a sort of call-out of the scientific hypothesis of the origin of life. As I told Hamishmash and Vermehlo, we don't typically truck with plain bash/complaint threads. If there's an actual debate, an actual point or thesis or conflict or reason, then cool. Right now, this is a no-go.
I think it is funny how people repeatedly mention viruses in origin of life debates. If a virus were to form from other stuff, it wouldn't be able to replicate! (Profesco: If you read this, I'd like to point out how necessary such a "Public service announcement" is in light of this undying claim that viruses could have existed before and given rise to life.
People mention viruses (viri?) because they appear to be a precursor to life. Not technically a living organism, but reproducing. Though I suppose that may turn out to be more about the definition than the actual science, but I don't know enough to make many remarks on it.
So, the mention of viruses is funny, semi-relevant, and apparently an important announcement. Now, TFP, why?
I'd also like to say in response to Profesco's point about "manmade environments" that the use of human intelligence in these experiments is something often overlooked by the scientists.
What point are you making? =s
Most of the public, whether they advocate current ideas of scientists about the origin of life or not, have been given the impression that these experiments do a very good job of approximating natural processes.
As close as we can currently get, probably, yes. We can't replicate hundreds of millennia, however, having existed ourselves for just a handful.
Precisely how would one go about falsifying the idea that life came from non-life without the aid of any intelligence? I am not here stating that such a thing is impossible; I am merely questioning whether it can be called a theory in the scientific sense. Would the scientists accept it if the origin of life turned out to be outside of the scope of science?
This is not a theory that has been confirmed, TFP. It's an infant theory at best merely suggested by the small amount of facts we do know. It is one possible theory, and currently the one that best fits our empirical observations. It might even be better to call it a hypothesis at this point in history. More needs to be learned. A scientist does not stop trying to learn just because he doesn't know, nor should he.
And I'll repeat myself. FightingPikachu, your questions and statements combine to announce the lack of information we have about that specific first instance of life in the universe. You point out, subtly or not-so-subtly, that the scientific community presently holds this as its premier hypothesis about the origin of life despite not having the same kind of experimental success as it does with other theories, and that you disagree with that.
That's all fine and good, but it's not a debate. Your posts so far show no point other than ... well, what appears to be a sort of call-out of the scientific hypothesis of the origin of life. As I told Hamishmash and Vermehlo, we don't typically truck with plain bash/complaint threads. If there's an actual debate, an actual point or thesis or conflict or reason, then cool. Right now, this is a no-go.
Would the scientists accept it if the origin of life turned out to be outside of the scope of science?
By 'outside the scope of science' you mean supernatural?
The supernatural, by definition is not and cannot be understood by science. How could the scientific community accept something to which the principles of the scientific method can be applied? Understanding the supernatural seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Having said that, there are individuals who happen to be scientists who accept supernatural concepts and beliefs.
Organic substances(i.e. amino acids which eventually form into proteins) formed from non-organic substances. The fact that organic substances can actually form from non-organic substances has been proven in many experiments but most notably the Miller-Urey experiment. This is where the details get hazy and science has not been able to come up with a concrete hypothesis on what actually happened due to lack of evidence or no way to actually experiment suggested hypotheses. It is believed though, that the organic substances formed some sort of symbiotic relationship with each other and the environment around them. They probably eventually formed into prokaryotes which eventually formed into eukaryotes. Evolution and time then took care of the rest.
Organic substances(i.e. amino acids which eventually form into proteins) formed from non-organic substances. The fact that organic substances can actually form from non-organic substances has been proven in many experiments but most notably the Miller-Urey experiment. This is where the details get hazy and science has not been able to come up with a concrete hypothesis on what actually happened due to lack of evidence or no way to actually experiment suggested hypotheses. It is believed though, that the organic substances formed some sort of symbiotic relationship with each other and the environment around them. They probably eventually formed into prokaryotes which eventually formed into eukaryotes. Evolution and time then took care of the rest.
In fact mitochondria, which are inherited from through the maternal lineage, is thought to be the product of such a symbiotic relationship. The chloroplasts found in plant cells are another organelle thought to have been derived from symbiosis.
If the topic at hand were the origin of the universe, I would agree with you entirely. But this isn't a matter of spontaneous generation.Ex nihilo nihil fit.
I believe the scientific explanation we have so far should be accepted even though we don't know everything. I am Christian but evolution does not under-mind God, IMHO. TFP, I saw your argument post in the CA and my response is that I believe it *IS* unreasonable to demand that scientists must have all the answers in order for evolution to be true. Evolution happened over billions of years. How are human beings supposed to know every event that happened that long ago?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.