I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 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
//With the best will in the world there is no hard evidence (or even "soft" evidence for that matter) that Earth has been visited at some point in recorded history by aliens.//
Had you studied the subject in any depth, your will, and your conclusions, might not be quite so doggedly questionable. I’d say there is rather a lot of ‘soft’ evidence – but none of that is relevant to this discussion simply because had aliens been responsible for the emergence of life on this planet, the problem of their origin would remain. So the question we’re left with is did life arise as a result of chemical reaction (where isn’t important, but we know it's possible that life originated elsewhere), or as a result of design by, as Khandro puts it, “an unknown, and perhaps unknowable greater power”? Personally, I think the former.
//And it's still not been sorted out whether that organic material could have survived an impact or not.//
I repeat that question has been answered by NASA – and it’s a ‘yes’.
Had you studied the subject in any depth, your will, and your conclusions, might not be quite so doggedly questionable. I’d say there is rather a lot of ‘soft’ evidence – but none of that is relevant to this discussion simply because had aliens been responsible for the emergence of life on this planet, the problem of their origin would remain. So the question we’re left with is did life arise as a result of chemical reaction (where isn’t important, but we know it's possible that life originated elsewhere), or as a result of design by, as Khandro puts it, “an unknown, and perhaps unknowable greater power”? Personally, I think the former.
//And it's still not been sorted out whether that organic material could have survived an impact or not.//
I repeat that question has been answered by NASA – and it’s a ‘yes’.
Thank you Khandro, it is so nice to have a question answered…at last.(despite you having to have your arm metaphorically twisted behind your back,). It sad to realise that everyone’s best efforts to answer your original question were doomed to failure since they were based on knowledge (albeit partial) and reason (mostly), which contradicted your unquestionable beliefs. You were in fact wasting our time. The reason I didn’t answer many of your questions is that your questions are usually followed by a series of progressively more basic questions (indicating your level of comprehension of matters scientific) which would try the patience of a saint. If you had told us your beliefs at the beginning, I for one probably wouldn’t have bothered to reply to your question. As it happens it turned out to have been one of those silly mind games that you play (since you weren’t really interested in the answers as demonstrated by the lack of related questions)I would love to know at what point in Khandro’s universe, the material world and the commonly accepted rules that determine the behaviour of matter and energy break down and give way to the dominance of the mysterious all pervading force or conscience that governs everything else ie. where the interaction between the apparently real and the ‘other’ is supposed to occur in your dualistic universe.
The question was COULD organic material could have survived an impact or not. The definitive answer to that is ‘yes’. From NASA: //A new experiment suggests that comet impacts could have sowed the seeds of life on Earth billions of years ago.// It matters not whether you want it to be so - it is so.
Also I didn't want to go into the alien visitors question too much because like you said it's irrelevant to the question at hand. I think I've studied it in enough depth to satisfy myself that for now at least I'm comfortable with my answer. I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to imply that I've not "studied the subject in any depth". I have. Less than you, to be sure -- but since when did that make any difference when the positions are reversed?
There always has to be a possibility that organic molecules could have survived (re)entry of the earths atmosphere as has been demonstrated, though the bacterial spores tested apparently did not, though it is possible. The organic molecules that survived entry are no different to those that were probably abundant on the Earths surface. I don't think that the question of alien molecules is much of an issue. As I mentioned in one of my lesser understood (by some) posts the spectrum of amino acids in life reflects the probable abundance of amino acids on a prebiotic Earth from which you can draw your own conclusions. Wherever molecules first became self replicating it must have been if not on Earth then somewhere similar so considering exogenisis as a possibility is really just begging the question. The question of how they came about is then roughly the same if we exclude Khandro's wildly speculative, fancifully vague and completely unjustifiable suggestions.
jomifl; A nice attempt to avoid my assessment of your performance. Regarding the thread; several of the 'senior members' have said they welcomed it, and only you say, despite 288 posts, that I am wasting everyone's time; and might I remind you that like all topics on AB, involvement is quite voluntary.
Also, thanks jim.
Also, thanks jim.
/A nice attempt to avoid my assessment of your performance./
Don't kid yourself Khandro :o)
It was a waste of our time insofar as you have been your usual hubristic and impervious self and you have wasted the opportunity to engage in a two way discussion which would have been better for not being sidetracked so frequently. It is a pity you weren't able to contribute more but it is understandable in the light of your belief.
Don't kid yourself Khandro :o)
It was a waste of our time insofar as you have been your usual hubristic and impervious self and you have wasted the opportunity to engage in a two way discussion which would have been better for not being sidetracked so frequently. It is a pity you weren't able to contribute more but it is understandable in the light of your belief.
jomifl;// I would love to know at what point in Khandro's universe, the material world and the commonly accepted rules that determine the behaviour of matter and energy break down and give way to the dominance of the mysterious all pervading force or conscience//
I agree with the 'commonly accepted rules' if by that you mean quantum mechanics, relativity and the non-separateness of energy and matter and such. "Conscience" has nothing to do with it.
I agree with the 'commonly accepted rules' if by that you mean quantum mechanics, relativity and the non-separateness of energy and matter and such. "Conscience" has nothing to do with it.
Dear Khandro,
You've really gone over the top and demeaned yourself this time.
Your attitude to jomifl is a disgrace, reveals your ignorance and now includes a major untruth!
Jomifl has been one of the most constructive contributors to this thread via his rock-solid knowledge of the scientific method, chemistry and I commend his patience although whatever he has said to annoy you is your fault for playing the fool.
You scoff at his excellent bucket chemistry model and falsely claim that it was dismissed by "the rest of the scientific cohort".
Wrong! I supported his model and believe I said it at the time (can't check back as I've started writing).
Anyway, jomifl's bucket chemistry model was an excellent model - submitted to try to explain to you and others the underlying principles of chemistry. For conciseness he left out details of the "explosive" aspect of the reaction - the release of hydrogen. This, reacts with oxygen in the air thro' a thermodynamically inevitable process, slow or quick. If quick, the result is an explosion. It is made quick by exposure to e.g. heat, be it an electric gas-oven lighter or a cigarette lighter - no lightening strike needed! It does not even need heat, a metal or other catalyst would do. His model, for simplicity assumed standard temperature and pressure - in many other conditions the reaction would have just happened.
Why the need for this trigger at room temperature/pressure?
You won't understand but here we go.
Even energetically favoured reactions often need to overcome a "hump" in the total energy change graph of the process, leading to an overall stable state (water molecules in jomifl's model) in which the potential energy is now less than the original state hence the explosion part which is the release of energy occurs as heat and light. This aspect was metioned by another contributor probably jim, beso or hypo - sorry whoever it was.
Please dont play the fool with us experienced chemists or physicists, Khandro - as you only come over as a real fool.
How bitterly disappointed I am with you Khandro. I still respect you but less than I did.
Please apologise to jomifl for your causing the spat after failing to understand what he has been trying to say as a help to you.
SIQ.
You've really gone over the top and demeaned yourself this time.
Your attitude to jomifl is a disgrace, reveals your ignorance and now includes a major untruth!
Jomifl has been one of the most constructive contributors to this thread via his rock-solid knowledge of the scientific method, chemistry and I commend his patience although whatever he has said to annoy you is your fault for playing the fool.
You scoff at his excellent bucket chemistry model and falsely claim that it was dismissed by "the rest of the scientific cohort".
Wrong! I supported his model and believe I said it at the time (can't check back as I've started writing).
Anyway, jomifl's bucket chemistry model was an excellent model - submitted to try to explain to you and others the underlying principles of chemistry. For conciseness he left out details of the "explosive" aspect of the reaction - the release of hydrogen. This, reacts with oxygen in the air thro' a thermodynamically inevitable process, slow or quick. If quick, the result is an explosion. It is made quick by exposure to e.g. heat, be it an electric gas-oven lighter or a cigarette lighter - no lightening strike needed! It does not even need heat, a metal or other catalyst would do. His model, for simplicity assumed standard temperature and pressure - in many other conditions the reaction would have just happened.
Why the need for this trigger at room temperature/pressure?
You won't understand but here we go.
Even energetically favoured reactions often need to overcome a "hump" in the total energy change graph of the process, leading to an overall stable state (water molecules in jomifl's model) in which the potential energy is now less than the original state hence the explosion part which is the release of energy occurs as heat and light. This aspect was metioned by another contributor probably jim, beso or hypo - sorry whoever it was.
Please dont play the fool with us experienced chemists or physicists, Khandro - as you only come over as a real fool.
How bitterly disappointed I am with you Khandro. I still respect you but less than I did.
Please apologise to jomifl for your causing the spat after failing to understand what he has been trying to say as a help to you.
SIQ.
Dear Naomi,
Ty for your posts even tho' I apparently disagree with NASA about where we originated, if I understand your drift.
But that's not my point which is to ask how long is this merry-go-round going on here?
NASA or me doesn't matter. Over and over so many of us are arguing for chemico/physics being the origin of life, wherever it started - there NASA and I agree. And I think you do. No word from NASA or you about a superb creator.
But Khandro just plods on with his ideas although he won't define them.
"There's none so blind as them who won't see"!
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
Ty for your posts even tho' I apparently disagree with NASA about where we originated, if I understand your drift.
But that's not my point which is to ask how long is this merry-go-round going on here?
NASA or me doesn't matter. Over and over so many of us are arguing for chemico/physics being the origin of life, wherever it started - there NASA and I agree. And I think you do. No word from NASA or you about a superb creator.
But Khandro just plods on with his ideas although he won't define them.
"There's none so blind as them who won't see"!
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
Thanks SIQ, a few kind words of support from somebody who knows of what they speak means rather more to me than you might think. There is an interesting divide between those of us who have had some sort of scientific training and can discuss matters in a mostly factual and possibly rather impersonal way and those others who think that an argument can be won by dissimulation, obfuscation, vilification and ridicule. Debating society point scoring doesn’t really amount to a ‘hill o’ beans’ in the grand scheme.
Dear Naomi,
Yes, I was referring to your post of Tuesday 03rd Dec 14.06.
I was not claiming your answer to jim for myself nor trying to get into a side-debate with you. Not at all.
I was simply thanking you for that and earlier contributions together with your referenced evidence in which you favour the evidence for the chemico/physical formation of life, wherever, over Khandro's "unknown and perhaps unknowable greater power".
My main point was about the merry-go-round on which we are all being spun by Khandro. I believe we are long past the point where all rational subscribers know where we stand and that should be enough for Khandro. If he has his way, we will be repeating our basic points and even dividing into factions about minutiae in Christmas 2015!
I hope I make myself clear, Naomi.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Yes, I was referring to your post of Tuesday 03rd Dec 14.06.
I was not claiming your answer to jim for myself nor trying to get into a side-debate with you. Not at all.
I was simply thanking you for that and earlier contributions together with your referenced evidence in which you favour the evidence for the chemico/physical formation of life, wherever, over Khandro's "unknown and perhaps unknowable greater power".
My main point was about the merry-go-round on which we are all being spun by Khandro. I believe we are long past the point where all rational subscribers know where we stand and that should be enough for Khandro. If he has his way, we will be repeating our basic points and even dividing into factions about minutiae in Christmas 2015!
I hope I make myself clear, Naomi.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal12 mins ago
Food & Drink12 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
