Origin of Life (page 36)

Viviane

So to clarify are you saying that when science proposes a theory, then one should try ones best to disprove it?

Absolutely. You would win a Nobel prize if you could disprove evolution or relativity.

Has history not taught as that most scientific theories are not quite right? If so then they are based on misunderstanding

Great question. Has it or has it not? You should look into that. What does that have to do with terrible questions?

However isn't that an assumption to assume a poster is being dishonest even if they have been corrected many times and still persist in the question. I am not saying it's an incorrect assumption, but I am sure many current scientific theories are a result of a scientist who refused to accept being corrected many times and persisted in his theory.

Why would it be an incorrect assumption? And that's not a theory, posting something you know to be untrue is what is called "dishonest".

p.s I am confused how on content Viviane got a dislike on her previous reply to mine.

Probably because someone clicked "Dislike".

Viv I could communicate with you all day, if you were the last egg in the box, but to suit my posting needs and with limited time, please understand I have a full box of eggs which I can make an omelette with. Therefore I won't be hard boiling any eggs today. Nothing wrong with a hard boiled egg, but that's just the way it is.

John_Mann

Yes, the origin of consciousness is another discussion.

I used to think about panspermia as the origin of life on earth but now I'm more inclined to abiogenesis (happening on earth).

I'm very skeptical about extraterrestrial life.

Yes, animals do have souls. Humans have an animal soul too (along with the directly created soul). But the animal soul is mortal.

The Rebel

Cofty :- " Don't you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible"

Thats an attractive proposition. Therefore may I please ask you " Cofty" how thoroughly you have investigated the evidence in your O.P? :-"life, is not an ethereal force that originates from God?

I am not trying to be a bee stinging on the tongue, instead I hope your answers will give credibility to your O.P and therefore give posters with opposing viewpoints a greater understanding of your calm rational thinking.

Because logic never stops.

Viviane

So getting back on O.P, may I ask Cofty how thoroughly you have investigated the evidence in your O.P that life, is not an ethereal force that originates from God?

That's not how it works. You investigate evidence for what it is, not what it isn't.

I am not trying to be a bee stinging on the tongue, instead I hope your answers will give credibility to your O.P comment, and give more understanding to those trying to respond.

Credibility? Cofty has posted dozens of threads on evolution and biology. Credibility isn't lacking on his part.

You said cofty sounded like a bully. How, specifically has he sounded like a bully and when did he do it? I only ask because your last comment sounds like a concern troll.

LoveUniHateExams

You're are wrong about the date of the most recent common ancestor of humans. It existed just a few thousand years - utter nonsense.

There have been fossil Homo sapiens crania dated to 50,000YA, 90,000YA, 100,000YA, etc.

As Cofty & Viv have no doubt already said, if you can demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that the most recent common ancestor of humans is 'just a few thousand years' old then a Nobel Prize awaits you.

LoveUniHateExams

The Rebel: b) if so then would we agree direct evidence for the origin of life impossible?

Yes, more or less. Direct evidence for the origin of life is unlikely to be found. Such evidence from the fossil record very likely won't be found - single-celled organisms leave no fossils.

The Rebel

I am no troll Viv, put your money on that and I will give you a free bet.

Because logic never stops.:-)

p.s if you play chess I am on many on line sites, if you want a game?

Vidqun

After all that, perhaps now is a good time to continue the thread topic. Cofty, a few questions for you. Which one of the abiogenesis theories do you support? Quite a few doing the rounds. What, in your opinion, would have been first, the cell or the gene? If it was the gene, DNA or RNA? High levels of ultaviolet light would have affected the gene adversely, so perhaps first the protective layer of a cell would be necessary. In a deep sea environment the ultraviolet threat would be cancelled out.

The general one is the “RNA world” theory, which posits that RNA – the molecule that today plays roles in coding, regulating, and expressing genes – elevated itself from the primordial soup of amino acids and cosmic chemicals to give rise first to short proteins called peptides and then to single-celled organisms.

However, for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That’s a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth’s age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.

prologos

Good questions Vidquin, may I add, the original questions were: how would believer react to the fait accompli, the future re-creative event of life's start.but now we are down to speculating how it happened, by slow evolution in a multiverse or a sudden major start just here. , how could you predict how deists, theist of various shades react to an event that has not occurred yet, and about which the details will be so important?

Origin of Life

Share this