Crosswords1 min ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
17:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
I highly doubt life in its present form on Earth would have had a chance in hell of developing apart from the contributions of compounds delivered by comets.
http://
http://
Given the relatively young age of the earth, the possibility that life initially evolved elsewhere is by no means impossible, and that has now been acknowledged by reputable science – as my earlier link to NASA indicates.
By the way, Eric Von Daniken is continually criticised and ridiculed, but, again given the young age of the earth, in my opinion, his fundamental hypothesis – that ‘God’ was a flesh and blood ancient astronaut who came to this planet from elsewhere – is entirely feasible, and is worthy of very serious investigation. It doesn’t happen, however, because human beings have a penchant for limiting the prospect of ‘possibility’ to that which they already know – which is why I say that science restricts imagination. Anything beyond that is instantly deemed either stupid or impossible – and that’s a great pity because it results in dismissing potential clues to the history of this planet. There was a time when we were convinced that if man travelled at more than about 25 miles per hour his head would fall off …. now we know it doesn’t.
By the way, Eric Von Daniken is continually criticised and ridiculed, but, again given the young age of the earth, in my opinion, his fundamental hypothesis – that ‘God’ was a flesh and blood ancient astronaut who came to this planet from elsewhere – is entirely feasible, and is worthy of very serious investigation. It doesn’t happen, however, because human beings have a penchant for limiting the prospect of ‘possibility’ to that which they already know – which is why I say that science restricts imagination. Anything beyond that is instantly deemed either stupid or impossible – and that’s a great pity because it results in dismissing potential clues to the history of this planet. There was a time when we were convinced that if man travelled at more than about 25 miles per hour his head would fall off …. now we know it doesn’t.
jomifl; //he [me] could easily have got a far more comprehensive answer to his question from Wiki// to which I reply; He [you] could find any amount of contradictory views and theories on wikipedia, to which you could address yourself". Say! why don't we all give up this writing business and just give constant links to different wiki sites, now won't that be fun? :-)
naomi; I have twice before mentioned what I have called the very feasible 'Star Trek option' and you are the first to have the courage to broach the subject. It seems to me an ideal solution and everybody wins; the atheist/scientists can stop bending over back wards trying to come up with preposterous dodgy science, and the theists can feel content that the can has been kicked down the road!
naomi; I have twice before mentioned what I have called the very feasible 'Star Trek option' and you are the first to have the courage to broach the subject. It seems to me an ideal solution and everybody wins; the atheist/scientists can stop bending over back wards trying to come up with preposterous dodgy science, and the theists can feel content that the can has been kicked down the road!
The "Star Trek" option may be right or wrong, but for the time being that's irrelevant. But again it kicks the can further down the road without solving anything. So someone deliberately set up life here. Fine. Except that means that said someone had to have come into being himself, somehow. Which in turn presumably brings into play all that so-called dodgy science again. Did he come from a planet where self-replicating molecules spontaneously came into being, or was he always there? I think we can easily dismiss the "he was always there" as being the dodgiest science of all. And if this astronaut was the product of evolution on his own planet, then presumably that just establishes that life can in fact just come to be under its own steam. And if it could happen there (wherever "there" is), why could it not happen here also -- or indeed, why could it not happen here instead?
It's as if the question of life emerging has to be answered in the context of this planet only.
The "25 mph" thing Was never a scientific opinion, but merely a popular view. Anyone who'd thought about it would have realised it was errant nonsense given that riders on horses regularly exceed 30 mph -- and by about the 17th Century it was realised that the Earth orbited the sun and was therefore travelling rather a lot faster than 25 mph. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
It's as if the question of life emerging has to be answered in the context of this planet only.
The "25 mph" thing Was never a scientific opinion, but merely a popular view. Anyone who'd thought about it would have realised it was errant nonsense given that riders on horses regularly exceed 30 mph -- and by about the 17th Century it was realised that the Earth orbited the sun and was therefore travelling rather a lot faster than 25 mph. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Khandro, and I strongly suspect that my broaching the subject will lead to my opinions being loftily dismissed as nonsense again. ;o)
Without proof, I’d hesitate to call it anything a ‘solution’. Mr Occam and I have never seen eye to eye and in my opinion his 'best guesses' are not ‘solutions’ - but I really do think it’s a distinct possibility.
Without proof, I’d hesitate to call it anything a ‘solution’. Mr Occam and I have never seen eye to eye and in my opinion his 'best guesses' are not ‘solutions’ - but I really do think it’s a distinct possibility.
I don't really "loftily dismiss your opinions as nonsense" either, if it comes to that. In response for example to your claim that "Science dismisses the possibility of future technology providing the evidence for an existing theory" I provided a counterexample to that. One of many that are out there. Really this was a chance to back up your opinion -- instead you chose to attack my qualifications. Not a particularly effective line of attack, really, since it doesn't address the point at all.
I remember briefly in another thread that you said you were tired of engaging with me. I don't think you ever have engaged with me, not really. If you make a point that I disagree with, I should be entitled to explain why, in my opinion, that point is invalid, and provide examples. Then, really, you should be entitled to do the same. But stop focusing on me personally, or my qualifications, or some fairly bizarre comment that I'm not Stephen Hawking, as if only he, some God among scientists, is entitled to communicate its message. (By the way, the first one of us to bring up their qualifications was you. I'd never have mentioned my own otherwise.)
If you focused on disagreeing with my points in a way that spent no time at all talking about me personally we might both find the discussions a lot more constructive.
Here's a direct question, anyway, to start things off: what specific examples are there of Science, or scientists as a whole, rejecting, without giving due consideration to, the idea that future technology may provide evidence for an existing idea that has been dismissed? Under what circumstances did they do so? Were there no reasonable grounds to assume that the present body of evidence was enough to make a balance-of-probabilities decision as to whether the idea was right or wrong?
I remember briefly in another thread that you said you were tired of engaging with me. I don't think you ever have engaged with me, not really. If you make a point that I disagree with, I should be entitled to explain why, in my opinion, that point is invalid, and provide examples. Then, really, you should be entitled to do the same. But stop focusing on me personally, or my qualifications, or some fairly bizarre comment that I'm not Stephen Hawking, as if only he, some God among scientists, is entitled to communicate its message. (By the way, the first one of us to bring up their qualifications was you. I'd never have mentioned my own otherwise.)
If you focused on disagreeing with my points in a way that spent no time at all talking about me personally we might both find the discussions a lot more constructive.
Here's a direct question, anyway, to start things off: what specific examples are there of Science, or scientists as a whole, rejecting, without giving due consideration to, the idea that future technology may provide evidence for an existing idea that has been dismissed? Under what circumstances did they do so? Were there no reasonable grounds to assume that the present body of evidence was enough to make a balance-of-probabilities decision as to whether the idea was right or wrong?
The point surely is, Naomi, that if the "God was an Astronaut" scenario was true, general observational and experimental science would uncover evidence to suggest that very scenario. I do not recognise this world of yours that you paint where, because the consensus view happens to be sceptical of a particular point ( like the the god is an astronaut scenario, for instance), that somehow the evidence or observation of phenomena is rejected or missed because of self-imposed blinkers imposed by scepticism. If there was a god- if god was an astronaut, there should be observational and experimental evidence out there to explain it, but none ever really seems to manifest, usually because some much more mundane reason can be employed.
I mean, if you can give any examples where some arcane practice/phenomenon/ evidence was originally wrongly attributed by scientists to a mundane naturalist/scientific explanation which was later proven to be wrong, in modern times, I would be very interested to hear about it.
For a phenomenon - like water dowsing, or ghosts, or a divine spark to create life, or a god is an astronaut scenario is being proposed,that phenomenon should be demonstrable and repeatable and even measurable. Predictions about the world should be made from such hypotheses that can be tested for. In every instance that I am aware of, the tests and predictions have failed at least one of those criteria of demonstrable, repeatable or measurable.
So, whilst such phenomena might, just might have occurred, as a consequence of psychic abilities, or a divine spark, or an alien visitation, or by some form of arcane law of physics as yet undiscovered,they remain within the province of speculation.
I mean, if you can give any examples where some arcane practice/phenomenon/ evidence was originally wrongly attributed by scientists to a mundane naturalist/scientific explanation which was later proven to be wrong, in modern times, I would be very interested to hear about it.
For a phenomenon - like water dowsing, or ghosts, or a divine spark to create life, or a god is an astronaut scenario is being proposed,that phenomenon should be demonstrable and repeatable and even measurable. Predictions about the world should be made from such hypotheses that can be tested for. In every instance that I am aware of, the tests and predictions have failed at least one of those criteria of demonstrable, repeatable or measurable.
So, whilst such phenomena might, just might have occurred, as a consequence of psychic abilities, or a divine spark, or an alien visitation, or by some form of arcane law of physics as yet undiscovered,they remain within the province of speculation.
By the way Khandro, there can be thought of as two separate "Star Trek" theories -- and this is where it gets messy. Really, the main idea is that aliens visited Earth early in the history of human culture and influenced it somehow. Such an idea can't be associated with the origin of life -- it's about 4 billion years too late! The idea you'd presumably be having, that life itself was started deliberately all those eons ago, is even more untestable than the idea that life spontaneously emerged in favourable conditions somewhere on this planet -- perhaps helped along by organic material found in space rocks but certainly very much a natural process.
Jim, It would appear that your self-confessed over-sensitivity is getting the better of you again. I’ve never ‘attacked' your qualifications – and I’ve never divulged mine. That is not my style.
LG, the constant perception that the ancient alien theory is somehow associated to the so-called ‘supernatural’ and to the airy-fairy world of ‘ghosts’ and ‘psychic’ ability is, I feel, the main stumbling block to rational investigation. If we could step back from all that and in the light of today’s technology, look seriously, with a modern eye, at ancient manuscripts, drawings, and structures, without pre-conceived notions, I think we might learn something we really weren’t aware of.
LG, the constant perception that the ancient alien theory is somehow associated to the so-called ‘supernatural’ and to the airy-fairy world of ‘ghosts’ and ‘psychic’ ability is, I feel, the main stumbling block to rational investigation. If we could step back from all that and in the light of today’s technology, look seriously, with a modern eye, at ancient manuscripts, drawings, and structures, without pre-conceived notions, I think we might learn something we really weren’t aware of.
The more we understand how the universe works, the more we understand the constraints of reality. Thus we understand what is likely and what is unlikely. That is why in the middle ages people were frightened of their own imaginings and took refuge in the idea of some form of saviour. They had little grasp of what was certain,probable, likely, unlikely. improbable or impossible. For some people not a lot has changed.
Describing a qualification as "meagre" seems to me to be a bit of an attack, especially when it isn't really accurate. And you did divulge your own -- I remember your saying "five years of education in a good school", though I won't bother tracking it down, since it will be buried somewhere in one of our many long debates or arguments. Well, if it wasn't meant as an attack is certainly wasn't worth mentioning. I shouldn't have brought it up myself, it really is bad style.
Which just leaves the rest of my questions for you to answer, if you like. And also a further question, which is whether the appearance of astronauts in early human civilisation can truly be said to have anything to do with the origins of life.
Which just leaves the rest of my questions for you to answer, if you like. And also a further question, which is whether the appearance of astronauts in early human civilisation can truly be said to have anything to do with the origins of life.
So the debate has moved on to the origins of extra-terrestrial life (alien astrononauts). Since we have no idea whether it even exists let alone what form it takes (bipedal humanoids with funny eyes excepted) perhaps we should stick to what we know does exist and did exist with some degree of certainty.
This lofty dismissal of "primordial soup" as being preposterous or dodgy by Khandro seems more than a little premature to me, unless he can offer convincing explanations beyond his own bias and prejudice as to why.
Has this relatively recent article from Scientific American been referenced in the discussion as yet? It revisits Miller-Ureys original, taking into account recent observations and thoughts about early earth atmosphere.
http://
If its already been offered and discussed, apologies - did not look back through all the pages to check...
Has this relatively recent article from Scientific American been referenced in the discussion as yet? It revisits Miller-Ureys original, taking into account recent observations and thoughts about early earth atmosphere.
http://
If its already been offered and discussed, apologies - did not look back through all the pages to check...
LG, just to add to my previous thoughts, in a universe that’s approximately 14 billion years old it’s not inconceivable that during the 10 billion years or so between the dawn of the universe and the emergence of our planet, civilizations existed and advanced technologically far beyond our current level long before the earth existed. Why a concept that is clearly physically possible is automatically aligned with the ‘supernatural’ is beyond my comprehension.
Jim, don’t worry, I know what I said and it wasn’t that your qualification is ‘meagre’. I said it is basic – meaning it is just the beginning for a man with your aspirations. Additionally, I didn’t say I’d completed ‘five years of education in a good school’ – I said I abandoned physics, chemistry and biology before A-level in favour of other pursuits – and that is the only reference I have ever made to my qualifications. Now for heaven’s sake stop.
Jim, don’t worry, I know what I said and it wasn’t that your qualification is ‘meagre’. I said it is basic – meaning it is just the beginning for a man with your aspirations. Additionally, I didn’t say I’d completed ‘five years of education in a good school’ – I said I abandoned physics, chemistry and biology before A-level in favour of other pursuits – and that is the only reference I have ever made to my qualifications. Now for heaven’s sake stop.
@Naomi "LG, just to add to my previous thoughts, in a universe that’s approximately 14 billion years old it’s not inconceivable that during the 10 billion years or so between the dawn of the universe and the emergence of our planet, civilizations existed and advanced technologically far beyond our current level long before the earth existed. Why a concept that is clearly physically possible is automatically aligned with the ‘supernatural’ is beyond my comprehension."
I take your point. But I remain somewhat puzzled though. Can you show me where this concept is automatically aligned with the supernatural in modern science? All scientific commentators that I am aware of are willing to countenance such a possibility, but again, as far as I am aware, we have seen no evidence, no observations to actually support such a possibility. If there is evidence that has been discounted, do you have any references to it? Links to webpages or whatever?
Given the nature of the original proposition being discussed here - inorganic molecules to organic molecules, self-replication, order and complexity and eventually life as we see it now on our planet, all hypotheses concerning that process remain speculative right now - but what evidence we have, what observations we are able to make still favour the "primordial soup" and earthly origin over other theories, as far as I understand things.
I take your point. But I remain somewhat puzzled though. Can you show me where this concept is automatically aligned with the supernatural in modern science? All scientific commentators that I am aware of are willing to countenance such a possibility, but again, as far as I am aware, we have seen no evidence, no observations to actually support such a possibility. If there is evidence that has been discounted, do you have any references to it? Links to webpages or whatever?
Given the nature of the original proposition being discussed here - inorganic molecules to organic molecules, self-replication, order and complexity and eventually life as we see it now on our planet, all hypotheses concerning that process remain speculative right now - but what evidence we have, what observations we are able to make still favour the "primordial soup" and earthly origin over other theories, as far as I understand things.
I will stop now, thanks for clearing it up. But you really shouldn't be so exasperated -- it's not exactly pleasant to have one's credentials apparently dismissed, and you shouldn't therefore be surprised that I make a bit of a deal out of it. Indeed up until your last comment "for heaven's sake stop" I was beginning to think that we might both be able to move on and focus on the actual questions again.
Latest Posts
Spec 2682 Last Light Help Please
Crosswords2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Jobs & Education8 mins ago
Thank You Starmer Reeves And Raynor
ChatterBank14 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
