The Definition of Real Science

[Gus Bovona]

there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis,
so organic chemicals are an irrelevance.

What research have you done that leads you to the conclusion that there is no hypothesis?

Apart from which - high temperature serpinitization of mineral magnesium silicates in presence of water and carbon dioxide can yield methane. So what?

I have no idea; why did you mention it?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I suggest you read it.

It has nothing to say about Abiogenesis. No structure.
It considers whether RNA preceded DNA and what base set might have existed. ( as everyone does)
It accepts that there must have been a precursor genome , but confirms there is no detail or consensus On what it might have been.
Without a first genome defined there can be no first living structure defined , so there is nothing to test or any hypothesus.

It confirms what I said. There is not only no postulated structure for first living things, there is also no agreed pathway from there to present.

There is neither a valid hypothesis for abiogenesis , nor any defined intermediates on the evoultion path to present cells.

After all the billions spent, the progress is pitiful.
I have been studying this for 50 years since first postulatin of protocells. Little has developed since.
in the other direction stripping down cells below hundreds of genes has also failed.
So backward engineering doesn’t work either.

I hate to tell our atheist materialist friends, but irreducible complexity is a serious problem for them.

Even if we grant that there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis, under your definition, what does that matter? Actual scientists are still doing research to discover how life began - even if they are in the stage of trying to develop a hypothesis.

 

[Mikeuk]

Even if we grant that there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis, under your definition, what does that matter? Actual scientists are still doing research to discover how life began - even if they are in the stage of trying to develop a hypothesis.

Good. someone recognising the true present status.
The research is worthwhile -

My problem is the systematic deception in misleading the public as to the significance of what is known.

The utterly misleading presentation of abiogenesis and ( at cell development level) evolution makes it sound like a “fact“ just missing details. Dawkins uses that word! But It is a void of Evidence , structure , or demonstrable process.

The reality is that back In the fifties DNA sequencing was all but non existent, that cell chemical pathways were in infancy, and everyone assumed that somewhere very simple life in blobs of jelly would be found , that in increasing stage of development as a pathway to present life.

That dream is long since shattered. but science won’t own up.

The simplest known cell is shown as horrendously complex, but such as Dawkins still peddle what they now know to be a complete myth. That life is mostly solved. It isn’t , in a way, it is an increasing void of understanding , since the complexity is increasingly seen as far more horrendous than ever thought.
Of course it won’t help Dawkins attempt at converting the world to materialist atheism for him to be rumbled as a charlatan. He goes way beyond his sphere of knowledge.

Kids are now wrongly told it is mostly solved.

I raised the issue of what organic chemicals actually are, - a type of bonding - and how they can be product even of mineral processes , since the illinformed poster seemed to equate evidence of organic chemicals as evidence of life, instead of an irrelevant sideshow.

of course reasearch is worthwhile so long as the scientists are honest. But if they owned up to how lilltle they know I suspect they would fail to get such huge lumps of funding!

 

[Frank Robert]

You are not defending Science.

You are defending your unevidenced faith in abiogenesis , but your science is too weak to notice,

Lets demolish another piece of misleading wish believe echoed by you .
you say old “ bacteria discovered” . There is no definitive evidence they were.

But let that pass -let’s even assume they were - the simplest known bacteria have 500 plus genes..
It is so complex that a simulation of mycoplasma genitalia - have you even heard of it? it took a hundred computers many hours to do a very inadequate simulation of it, albeit some years ago.

And the furthest they got in stripping it down was knocking a mere 25 genes out, before it became unstable and failed.
It is still mind boggling complex.

It is orders of magnitude more complex than any human built chemical factory,

The simplest books showing chemical pathways of cell structure are still very thick books,
So it is not in any sense simple life.

For abiogenesis to be even considered possibl, the first living thing must have been many orders of magnitude simpler .
Nobody has any concept of the structure of it, genome of it, or what it was made of, or what combined to form it. A blank.

So no, we don’t agree to disagree.
You are wrong - there is no evidence whatsoever of abiogenesis, no process ot , no structure or concept of what combined to for it.
There is also no concept of an evolution pathway to present cells.
At a cellular level both abiogenesus and evoLuton to present structure are a complete unknown.
That is the true status in science.

You are of course welcome to believe it as a matter of faith.

In other fields too I have seen university professors who spent an entire career chasing something they believed for which they never found evidence or process.

There is no shame in that. So long as they do not confuse a belief with what they know from evidence or process. Dreaming big is how some discoveries are made. It is not all incremental.

but I have also seen university professors like Dawkins and such as Sagan wilfully misleading the public to misrepresent their faith as science, and abuse their positions in doing so. I draw the line at them.

I am not a scientist but I do have a decent understanding of the current state of OoL science. I have also been to several apologetic sites where I've seen claims similar to yours. Apologetics is not science it is based on religious beliefs. I have often said that we need to respect religious beliefs even if we do not agree so I am just following my own inclinations.

You asked me to step back and not derail your post. When I thought about it, it made sense for the reasons stated in a former post. However, if you wish for me to continue the discussion please either supply evidence for your claims or provide links to the resources that support your claims with scientific evidence. I want to remain open to learning but if all you do is repeat the same claims over and over w/o evidence we both could use the time more constructively.

 

[Mikeuk]

I am not a scientist but I do have a decent understanding of the current state of OoL science. I have also been to several apologetic sites where I've seen claims similar to yours. Apologetics is not science it is based on religious beliefs. I have often said that we need to respect religious beliefs even if we do not agree so I am just following my own inclinations.

You asked me to step back and not derail your post. When I thought about it, it made sense for the reasons stated in a former post. However, if you wish for me to continue the discussion please either supply evidence for your claims or provide links to the resources that support your claims with scientific evidence. I want to remain open to learning but if all you do is repeat the same claims over and over w/o evidence we both could use the time more constructively.

I don’t need scientific evidence.
im not the one making the claim

Please read my post 83 about how we got here - the once optimistic history in the fifties , assuming blobs of simple life jelly would be found. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. But not any more.

Alas then came DNA sequencing, and the cell pathways were shown to be orders of magnitude more sophisticated than thought at the time , so the reality on the horrendous complexity of cells kicked in.

Science has failed since to be honest about how little it knows.

The research is worthwhile but science should stop deceiving the public on the true status.
Dawkins still calks it a “ fact”

 

[Frank Robert]

I don’t need scientific evidence.
im not the one making the claim

Thank you for admitting you do not have any evidence for your claim that there is "no hypotheses for abiogenesis." We are now both free to use our time more constructively.

BTW, you are entitled to your beliefs even if they contradict the are multiple past, present and future scientific studies for abiogenesis.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Good. someone recognising the true present status.
The research is worthwhile -

My problem is the systematic deception in misleading the public as to the significance of what is known.

The utterly misleading presentation of abiogenesis and ( at cell development level) evolution makes it sound like a “fact“ just missing details. Dawkins uses that word!

Do you have a link or a quotation so everyone can check this?

But It is a void of Evidence , structure , or demonstrable process.

The reality is that back In the fifties DNA sequencing was all but non existent, that cell chemical pathways were in infancy, and everyone assumed that somewhere very simple life in blobs of jelly would be found , that in increasing stage of development as a pathway to present life.

That dream is long since shattered. but science won’t own up.

The science done relating to abiogenesis is not stuck in the 50s, so I don't know why any of the above matters.

The simplest known cell is shown as horrendously complex, but such as Dawkins still peddle what they now know to be a complete myth. That life is mostly solved.

Can you be a bit more specific that "life is . . . solved"? What does that even mean? It could mean (1) how life proceeds, how living things operate, or it could mean (2) how life originally came about.

It isn’t , in a way, it is an increasing void of understanding , since the complexity is increasingly seen as far more horrendous than ever thought.

That doesn't mean that abiogenesis is impossible. It's basically irrelevant. If science wants to show that abiogenesis is possible, they still have to do what they have to do to show it.

Of course it won’t help Dawkins attempt at converting the world to materialist atheism for him to be rumbled as a charlatan. He goes way beyond his sphere of knowledge.

I really don't care about Dawkins.

Kids are now wrongly told it is mostly solved.

What is solved, and do you have a specific example of what kids are being told, and by who?

I raised the issue of what organic chemicals actually are, - a type of bonding - and how they can be product even of mineral processes , since the illinformed poster seemed to equate evidence of organic chemicals as evidence of life, instead of an irrelevant sideshow.

of course reasearch is worthwhile so long as the scientists are honest. But if they owned up to how lilltle they know I suspect they would fail to get such huge lumps of funding!

What makes you think they don't own up to how little they know (broadly, and in general, because, with so many scientists and biologists in the world, we're sure to have a few who will do anything we could name while still not impacting science as a whole very much).

Lastly, can you please answer this question for me:

What research have you done that leads you to the conclusion that there is no hypothesis?

 

[CrowCross]

A scientific theory is valid if it fits the available evidence, and remains valid until it can be disproved. Science is an ever changing displine and the word "fact" should be held a little loosely. Newtownian physics was "fact" (and for the most part is still valid within the macroscopic universe) however, when quantum physics came along, it revolutionised physics.

Perhaps...but recently, well a few years ago....they discovered biomaterial in dino bone. That is 65+MY old dino bone.
The question is, how did the biomaterial survive rather than rot or decay away or become fossilized?

So, as far as "modern" science being challenged....the evidence strongly suggest the dinosaurs are recent animals....I would suggest they were killed in the flood of Noah and buried.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Perhaps...but recently, well a few years ago....they discovered biomaterial in dino bone. That is 65+MY old dino bone.
The question is, how did the biomaterial survive rather than rot or decay away or become fossilized?

Specialized circumstances (source)

CC, we gotta stop meeting like this!

 

[CrowCross]

Specialized circumstances (source)

CC, we gotta stop meeting like this!

Eh...The article didn't really say. Are you ready to accept the truth yet?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Eh...The article didn't really say. Are you ready to accept the truth yet?

I'm ready to accept the truth! Are you?

exceptional circumstances can preserve dinosaur biology to a microscopic levels of detail that are only just now being appreciated.

“The animal was obviously buried very rapidly in a sand dune event, as indicated by its death position sitting on a nest of unhatched eggs,” Moyer says. This shielded Big Mama’s body from scavengers and the harsh outside world. High levels of calcium in the claw, Moyer says, suggests this mineral maybe have helped the preservation of the proteins inside—a happenstance that allowed Big Mama to come to us in such high fidelity. “

More to come.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Eh...The article didn't really say. Are you ready to accept the truth yet?

Another source

 

[Frank Robert]

Perhaps...but recently, well a few years ago....they discovered biomaterial in dino bone. That is 65+MY old dino bone.
The question is, how did the biomaterial survive rather than rot or decay away or become fossilized?

So, as far as "modern" science being challenged....the evidence strongly suggest the dinosaurs are recent animals....I would suggest they were killed in the flood of Noah and buried.

It appears that you are referring to Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, 2005 discovery of soft tissue inside the fossilized T-rex. Since then, iron was found in the sample which is known to protect proteins from decay. What I find of most interest is that the proteins were similar to those found in modern birds, which are closely related to dinosaurs.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm ready to accept the truth! Are you?

I have, I read Genesis....

 

[CrowCross]

Another source

I'm surprised you brought up an article that mentioned the "iron".

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Here's the backroom baseball talk concerning that...

When I talk on this subject with Evos and ask how the biomaterial can survive for 65 + MY's I generally get 2 answers. The first is often I don't know, it just does somehow while the second is that it is preserved by iron. Mary Schweitzer needed a way to preserve the biomaterial or the concept of deep time will unravel. She concluded iron would do the trick. But in order to get it to work a lot of preperation had to be performed.

In order to conduct the experiment and have hopes of it working here's what they had to do...

They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving.

Tissue was then soaked in the modified blood for 2 years in a laboratory environment. That is, no insects, water, microbes, plant roots etc were present….which would have been present when the organisms were buried.
From the heavily modified blood Mary Schweitzer was able to extrapolate 2 years into 65+ MY's and suggest that's how the biomaterial may have been preserved.
But, as we all very well know in the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.

Is iron the answer...no Gus, it's not.. Iron fails.

Yeah, that process mimics the real world. Right Gus?

https://creationtoday.org/media/dinosaurs-take-a-bite-out-of-time-season-5-episode-04/
8 min mark.
click here.

 

[CrowCross]

It appears that you are referring to Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, 2005 discovery of soft tissue inside the fossilized T-rex. Since then, iron was found in the sample which is known to protect proteins from decay. What I find of most interest is that the proteins were similar to those found in modern birds, which are closely related to dinosaurs.

See post 95.....The Iron was refuted. That is it failed. Do you have another means of preserving the biomaterial?

 

[Frank Robert]

See post 95.....The Iron was refuted. That is it failed. Do you have another means of preserving the biomaterial?

No it hasn't. Creationist sites are for apologetics not science. Try:

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time | NIH

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time - PMC

The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Preservation of Soft Tissues in Dinosaur Fossils: Compatibility with an Age of Millions of Years

https://bioone.org/journals/the-american-biology-teacher/volume-83/issue-5/abt.2021.83.5.298/

Abstract
The recent discovery of preserved cells and soft tissues in certain dinosaur bones seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, given the expectation that cells and soft tissues should have decayed away after millions of years. However, evidence from radiometric dating shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Under certain circumstances, cells and soft tissues in bone are protected from complete disintegration. Formation of a mineral concretion around a bone protects biomolecules inside it from hydrolysis by groundwater. Infusion and coating with iron and iron compounds at a critical point in the decay process protects cells within a bone from autolysis. Cross-linking and association with bone mineral surfaces furnish added protection to collagen fibers in a bone. These protective factors can result in soft-tissue preservation that lasts millions of years. It would benefit educators to be aware of these phenomena, in order to better advise students whose acceptance of biological evolution has been challenged by young-Earth creationist arguments that are based on soft tissues in dinosaur fossils.
© 2021 by The Regents of the University of California.

The best we can say is claims for dino soft tissue and iron preservation are still controversial

BTW, if the dino soft tissue was actually found, I think the more exciting finding is that the proteins resemble bird protein which lends evidence to marco evolution.

 

[CrowCross]

No it hasn't. Creationist sites are for apologetics not science. Try:

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time | NIH

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time - PMC

The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Preservation of Soft Tissues in Dinosaur Fossils: Compatibility with an Age of Millions of Years

https://bioone.org/journals/the-american-biology-teacher/volume-83/issue-5/abt.2021.83.5.298/

Abstract
The recent discovery of preserved cells and soft tissues in certain dinosaur bones seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, given the expectation that cells and soft tissues should have decayed away after millions of years. However, evidence from radiometric dating shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Under certain circumstances, cells and soft tissues in bone are protected from complete disintegration. Formation of a mineral concretion around a bone protects biomolecules inside it from hydrolysis by groundwater. Infusion and coating with iron and iron compounds at a critical point in the decay process protects cells within a bone from autolysis. Cross-linking and association with bone mineral surfaces furnish added protection to collagen fibers in a bone. These protective factors can result in soft-tissue preservation that lasts millions of years. It would benefit educators to be aware of these phenomena, in order to better advise students whose acceptance of biological evolution has been challenged by young-Earth creationist arguments that are based on soft tissues in dinosaur fossils.
© 2021 by The Regents of the University of California.

The best we can say is claims for dino soft tissue and iron preservation are still controversial

BTW, if the dino soft tissue was actually found, I think the more exciting finding is that the proteins resemble bird protein which lends evidence to marco evolution.

The concept of IRON preserving the biomaterial...was refuted in post 95.

Please address the issues of refutation present there rather than posting an article that makes the same false iron claim.

 

[Frank Robert]

The concept of IRON preserving the biomaterial...was refuted in post 95.

Please address the issues of refutation present there rather than posting an article that makes the same false iron claim.

Please supply a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your claim. I not saying there isn't any only that I have not been able to find one. The nearest I have found is "it's still controversial." As far as I can, as a lay person can determine that evolution makes no predictions about how long organic material can be expected to last under different conditions.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I'm surprised you brought up an article that mentioned the "iron".

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Here's the backroom baseball talk concerning that...

When I talk on this subject with Evos and ask how the biomaterial can survive for 65 + MY's I generally get 2 answers. The first is often I don't know, it just does somehow while the second is that it is preserved by iron. Mary Schweitzer needed a way to preserve the biomaterial or the concept of deep time will unravel. She concluded iron would do the trick. But in order to get it to work a lot of preperation had to be performed.

In order to conduct the experiment and have hopes of it working here's what they had to do...

They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving.

Tissue was then soaked in the modified blood for 2 years in a laboratory environment. That is, no insects, water, microbes, plant roots etc were present….which would have been present when the organisms were buried.
From the heavily modified blood Mary Schweitzer was able to extrapolate 2 years into 65+ MY's and suggest that's how the biomaterial may have been preserved.
But, as we all very well know in the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.

Is iron the answer...no Gus, it's not.. Iron fails.

Yeah, that process mimics the real world. Right Gus?

https://creationtoday.org/media/dinosaurs-take-a-bite-out-of-time-season-5-episode-04/
8 min mark.
click here.

Frank Robert looks to be more knowledgable than I am on this topic, so I'll just make one point: How do we know that clotted and hardened blood (is hardened the same as clotted, or is it something different?) can't be available to iron in a chemical process?