Re: Life: Turn it upside down!

  Arkalen wrote:

You're repeating your original reaction to that sentence in a way that makes it clearer that you really are just reacting to the word "assumption"

I am responding to what is said, correct.
I think I can speak for everyone, and if I can't I certainly should
be able to, when I say that amongst the more annoying things on
usenet is when people ignore what you say and, instead, react to
something that was never stated.
But I'm just brilliant, that's all. What do I know?

that refers to pretty well-accepted facts about the primordial Earth.

Yet we both know that we don't have all the answers, because if
we did we'd never even have discussions such as this.
There are working assumptions. Abiogenesis is a working assumption
and it's wrong it assume that it's a fact, much less a well
accepted fact.
There are other ideas out there, including other scientific ideas.
There's a lot of interesting things, published online, on the
topic of a-priori assumptions. I know you're plenty familiar
with the concept and the pitfalls but maybe a reminder?

I would take it as a confirmation that you think things like "there wasn't free oxygen in the atmosphere in that Hadean" are faith, but then you say this:

If abiotic oxygen is a myth, life has already been discovered
on Mars. Ganymede. Europa.

The faith begins with the belief that abiogenesis even happened.

So it doesn't seem you're applying that word in a very consistent way.

That does not follow.
There's more than one potential answer. A BELIEF, a FAITH in
one in particular is FAITH BASED.

Panspermia is equally as valid.
>

No

Of course it is.

the alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis is far and away superior to all others in scope, specificity, evidential support and predictive power.

Lol!  Nothing is useful unless and until life is spontaneously
formed under laboratory conditions. AND THEN that's when the
debate begins!  Because it won't "Prove" that it ever happened
in nature, only that it is not excluded.
 > It's especially superior to panspermia which isn't even so much a

hypothesis as a vague notion that doesn't actually explain the origin of life.

Science is about stepping outside of yourself. That is literally
why it exists. Humans are so biased that we need a specific
set of rules, a process we must follow to keep up from latching
onto whatever our knee-jerk tells us.
Science was created to remove the human element.
You're insisting that the human element is what validates the
work.

There's also creationism, yes.

 Sure. I figured that since you were talking about a spectrum of complexity in things that actually exist from life to nonlife that the context of this thread was naturalistic explanations.

The problem with Creationism is that abiogenesis, in a lab, would
be an example of same. So you're not escaping Creationism with
such goals, you're trying to validate it with an actual example!
Ironic, I know.

It's also possible that abiogenesis did occur, on Mars or even
in another solar system, only for life to be deposited on Earth
via some cross contamination...

Way more likely that it was in alkaline hydrothermal vents.

It's not a vote. And there is no outcome to such a pursuit that
would "Prove" abiogenesis over, say, Creationism.

Sure, and the alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis is really good in comparison to pretty much all of the other ideas on abiogenesis

Rather circular, that. And anyone proposing a different answer
would be definition be disagreeing with you.
What do you have in common with all of them? That's a start.

And I'm telling you most of that spectrum is empty, shows a huge gulf.

>
That would be more convincing if either one of us could point to
such a spectrum -- mapped out, scientifically. But we can't. So
you are arguing... what?

Here's me pointing->:
...water&lower -> Tornadoes, crystals, abiotic autocatalytic reactions, alcohol -> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, long alkanes -> [huge gap] -> most viruses -> giant viruses, intracellular parasites? -> prokaryotic cells -> eukaryotic cells & higher...

This is usenet. The internet. I just read a claim that the exact same
scientists who worked out the date, time & location of the eclipse
are the people who have determined that Gwobull Warbling is REEL!
Matter exists along a spectrum. All matter. Map it out. Speaking
rhetorically. Not saying you should do it but I am saying that it
needs to be done.

Shouldn't be too hard for you to fill that gap if what you're saying is true.

And yet we both know that it's never been done.

The spectrum isn't empty, it's ignored.

How could we tell the difference ?

Someone could attempt to map out all life and non life:  Matter.
The claim is that the very same nature which produced diamonds
and forms lithium can also produce life. This life is not a
separate and distinct form of matter, it lies along a spectrum.
This much is a fact.
To claim anything else is to argue divine intervention!
So if we understand that spectrum we understand life, and an
understanding of that spectrum begins with actually mapping
it out.

I mean, obviously every element of that spectrum has to have been realized at some point, or abiogenesis couldn't have happened.

>
We're back to being faith-based. Abiogenesis is not the only
game in town. And even if it did happen somewhere on the
surface of a planet, this may not have been that planet! It
may literally be impossible to identify any environment that
had ever existed on this Earth which might've resulted in
abiogenesis... if it ever happened anywhere.

Nah it's not impossible, several perfectly cromulent candidates were identified including the one it actually happened in which is alkaline hydrothermal vents.

Nah, you're trolling.

So switch the focus. Study things that are real, that actually
exist.

I'm extremely confused. Are you saying there are tons of entities that exist today that are intermediate steps between life and non-life such that no complexity gap between the two exist, but also life didn't start from non-life? Or all the entities are somewhere other than Earth?

Is that how you see the Electromagnetic Spectrum? As a series of
intermediate steps?
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5