On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Life can exist in some of the most hostile environments imaginable such as existing upon Volcanic Vents 10 miles down at the bottom of the ocean.

AA

 

The first article is about reviews for research proposal (e.g. sometimes peer review of the proposal is biased by reputation).
The second article is about editorial review of research to be published.
When research is published, it becomes fair game for anybody who wants to prove themselves to reproduce the results and either confirm the findings or become famous by proving that the research is faulty.

The Argon gas dissipates quickly while the rock is liquid (except for special cases like lava which has formed that glassy shell holding the gas in). In rock types that can be dated by this method, you have to wait for the Potassium to decay long enough to get a measurable amount of Argon. It starts at 0 and increases (based on the radioactive decay rate of the Potassium). The new Argon is trapped because the rock is solid.

 

Do you know all of the conditions under which life can form?

 

That position (that the conditions to make life also destroy it) is based on the premise that the conditions are homogeneous. It assumes that the products cannot be washed into a protective area (perhaps cracks in the rocks where they are protected from UV radiation) and it assumes that the first successful step toward life was compatible with the environment we have around us. The web site does not address (at all) the possibility that the first successful step toward life was something more compatible with the primitive earth environment and that it gradually evolved as the earth changed.

 

that's how science works.

no that isn't evidence against abiogenesis.

now, how about taking a crack at supporting your claim that the experiment was debunked?

 

Then prove it wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not the point. The point is the building blocks can't survive in that type of environment.

 

If it did worked that way then we would still be believing that the earth is flat as the Catholic Church controlled science for a while and would've never publish anything against what is accepted.

I have.

- - - Updated - - -

The miller experiment which excluded certain variables that would've destroyed the experiment?

- - - Updated - - -

So how would you know how long would it take?

- - - Updated - - -

Which you have no evidence of either.

 

You want me to disprove someone trying to disprove something else?? LOL!!!!

Life exists.....thus it is a 100% Certainty that Abiogenesis is a reality.

Supernatural explanations cannot be used as a basis for anything.

AA

 

Natural selection helps rather than hinders; since, chemical evolution happens, it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, eventually.

 

I had responded to an earlier question about excess Argon affecting K-Ar radiometric dating:
The Argon gas dissipates quickly while the rock is liquid (except for special cases like lava which has formed that glassy shell holding the gas in). In rock types that can be dated by this method, you have to wait for the Potassium to decay long enough to get a measurable amount of Argon. It starts at 0 and increases (based on the radioactive decay rate of the Potassium). The new Argon is trapped because the rock is solid.

You experiment and take measurements. Argon is a noble gas so it does not react/combine with any other atoms, so whenever the rock is molten the Argon escapes. The speed of all that happening depends on the type of material. Apparently, even lava can lose its initial Argon if its outer shell does not cool too fast. Again, the problem is not that it takes a long time to get rid of the excess Argon. The problem is that it takes time to build up enough new Argon (from radioactive decay) to a level that can be measured.

Some of this is pretty obvious. For example, if you are worried about UV radiation are you claiming rocks cannot block UV radiation or that the amino acids could not precipitate into a crack in the rock?

As far as the possibility I suggested that the first successful step toward life was something more compatible with the primitive earth environment (and it gradually evolved as the earth changed)... that is just one of many possibilities. Are you claiming that it is impossible?

 

So you can't provide a published peer reviewed paper which debunked it?

where? you haven't provided anything showing it was debunked.

 

But they could have survived in other environments. Nature is neither homogenous or constant.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that under some conditions, the building blocks of life are not just possible, they are inevitable.

 

It is telling that you constantly request evidence of others (which is usually ignored when provided) while never providing ANY data to back your own claims. It has reached the point that most no longer providing you with information that you obviously cannot or will not understand.

 

Natural selection helps rather than hinders; since, chemical evolution happens, it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, eventually.

 

When trillions of chemical reaction take place every second over quadrillions of minutes and billions of years, the odds are pretty good that one(1) of them will result in something that self replicates. This then continues over the same concept of time which would eventually lead to something we would call life.

~Or~ Some super entity got bored thousands of years ago, decided to imagine everything into existence while depositing things to trick us all away from what it did.

- - - Updated - - -

When trillions of chemical reaction take place every second over quadrillions of minutes and billions of years, the odds are pretty good that one(1) of them will result in something that self replicates. This then continues over the same concept of time which would eventually lead to something we would call life.

~Or~ Some super entity got bored thousands of years ago, decided to imagine everything into existence while depositing things to trick us all away from what it did.

 

I will not only refute it, but I will enlighten you with the fundamental structure of the universe. Below are the fundamental ingredients required for our universe.

1. The Lebesgue Measure. It is the probability law for n-dimensional Euclidean space. It is invariant on all length and time scales. You may regard it as the single most fundamental mathematical structure governing the physical universe.
2. Fundamental Group Symmetries. The conservation laws have an intimate relationship with symmetry. Time-invariance corresponds to conservation of energy, translational-invariance corresponds to conservation of momentum, ..., e.g. Noether's Theorem. Groups have matrix represenations. In fact, group representations of matrices are observables.
3. The Lebesgue Measure acting on the Fundamental Groups recapitualtes a real Hilbert space. In fact, it is rather straightforward to demonstrate with a particular cononical transformation, the appropriate metric on phase space is Hilbert space, where Liouville's Theorem is beautifully expressed effortlessly in a single line.
4. The Power-Law f(r) = r^(k) with boundary condition f(0) = 0. It is the only scale-invariant function and thus the only function which allows entropy to be written as a differential equation. It maps traceless orthogonal matrices to vectors in complex Hilbert space.

With these 4 mathematical properties you can construct entire universes in silica. In fact, we are in one of the many simulated universes I designed. However, no one nor anything made the rules for which the simulation runs, they are the bedrock of reality. You honestly think I sat down and hard coded every living thing you see? Nah dude, your 'god' has to abide by the rules just like everyone else.

 

Well...while I applaud your post.....thing is....just these 4 mathematical properties are not enough as they cannot account for Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

However I helped develop a Multiversal Model as the Many Worlds Model is too limited to account for Quantum Mechanics and an Infinite System.....and the MM does account for this.

Our Universe is NOT a Closed System.

And our Universe is FINITE.

However the Multiverse is not.

But nice post.

AA

 

A good teacher can explain even the most complex ideas in ways that are understandable to lay persons. In that regard, you fail.

Wanna try again?

 

Although he posted some informative information it is incomplete.

He states that with just those 4 mathematical properties you can construct entire universes in silica.

But those universes would be incomplete.

The reality is that Quantum Mechanics is showing us that our Universe is not the only one and that a Multiversal System MUST be in play.

These 4 mathematical properties at one time were thought to be enough to detail a Many Worlds Model.

But Many Worlds is just a PART of a Multiversal System.

Why?

Because Many Worlds only details infinite and alternate divergent universal states of reality each being slightly different than our own and this does exist...BUT...in any INFINITE SYSTEM.....there must also be INFINITE MANY WORLDS SYSTEMS.....thus there also exists an infinite number of Baseline Reality Universal Systems each having infinite universal states within each and each Baseline Reality System would have a completely different set of physical universal laws that are different from out own.

AA

 

It's beyond my pay grade.

 

I agree the universe (phase space) is finite. I.e. there exists an upper bound on all possible states of the physical universe. This seems to be a reasonable assumption since the total information content of the universe is constant. Phase space can be eloquently expressed as the sigma-field (or sigma-algebra) of every possible outcome of all possible measurments, call it sample space. If we take the orbit as n approaches infinity (time approaches infinity) clearly there then exists some critical time in which every state of the universe is visited at least twice (note this is simply the pigeonhole principle). In Ergodic theory this is a statement of Poincure Reccurance. The Multiverse in this sense is the multiplicity of sigma-fields generated by all possible orbits. Furthermore, the measure on the Multiverse is still the Lebesgue measure and thus the Laws of Physics will remain the same throughout all universes. The Laws of Physics are invariant for all time and space, period -- end of story. Every universe has the same laws, period -- end of story.

 

Indeed, a great teacher can. However, given the limited capacity of the medium in which we communicate such ideas can't be completely expressed in their simplest form. All of the above can be shown geometrically and pictorally. I wish I could show you, pheraps another time.

 

The opposite of what you're doing.

 

Why, since you have as much proof for abiogenesis as I have for the existence of an intelligent being?

 

How are those connected to my response? I was saying that natural selection had more to do with the moths changing rather than a change in chemistry.