Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic. This
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=sharedcomplexity of biology.
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=sharedthis really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=sharedchemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=sharedvideo reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hiddenphilosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
https://www.bing.com/search?q=sandwalk+larry+moran&form=ANNH01&refig=93bc4c22ed56421891ec91670a0dd2a6
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:20:48 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
From category "let me bing Larry Moran for you":
https://www.bing.com/search?q=sandwalk+larry+moran&form=ANNH01&refig=93bc4c22ed56421891ec91670a0dd2a6
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=sharedvideo reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic. This
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=sharedcomplexity of biology.
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=sharedthis really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=sharedchemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=sharedvideo reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hiddenphilosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:Why keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth,
so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality
as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago
on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something
positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?
Ron OkimotoThis video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage thatThe video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) >https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=sharedvideo reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic. This
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:15:50 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:Why keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth,
so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality
as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
You ask regarding OoL, "What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study what happened afterwards". It matters because of The Big Question: Is “the [material] Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"? Or do wesee scientific evidence of the work of an intelligent designer?*
Therefore, I'm focusing on question 1 with The Big Question in mind.
* I've expressed this as a dichotomy, but with possible categories like Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc, this may require refinement.
Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth,
and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:15:50 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:Why keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth,
so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality
as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
You ask regarding OoL, "What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study what happened afterwards". It matters because of The Big Question: Is “the [material] Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"? Or do wesee scientific evidence of the work of an intelligent designer?*
Therefore, I'm focusing on question 1 with The Big Question in mind.
* I've expressed this as a dichotomy, but with possible categories like Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc, this may require refinement.This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
Ron Okimoto
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage thatThe video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:15:50 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
Why keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth,
so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it
matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality
as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be
more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago
on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as
isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves
about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something
positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious
beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?
Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
see scientific evidence of the work of an intelligent designer?*You ask regarding OoL, "What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study what happened afterwards". It matters because of The Big Question: Is “the [material] Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"? Or do we
Therefore, I'm focusing on question 1 with The Big Question in mind.
* I've expressed this as a dichotomy, but with possible categories like Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc, this may require refinement.This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
Ron Okimoto
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) >>> https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 >>> “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ >>>
On 9/27/2023 9:03 PM, MarkE wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:15:50 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
Why keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want >> to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, >> so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality >> as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be >> more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago >> on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as
isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves >> about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something
positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious
beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?
Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?You can answer your own question by just filling the gaps with some god
and seeing what you get. You know that it isn't the god that you want
to believe in, so there is no reason to pursue those gaps. Just because science doesn't have all the answers at this time, doesn't mean that
your denial will mean anything in terms of your religious beliefs. Most
of the other Biblical creationists on TO figured that out when the Top
Six God-of-the-gaps stupidity was presented to them in a way that they
could not deny that reality. The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six,
and you have already admitted that you do not want to understand the
origin of life in terms of your religious beliefs. Just like the other Biblical creationists you do not want to believe in the designer of the
Top Six.
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?We do not know the answer to #1. Tour doesn't either. All Tour knows
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
is that he can't do any IDiotic science that would make him happy. His excuse is that he doesn't know how to do any, but that is a lie because there is a lot of science that can be done in the regions between the
gaps where he can get relevant answers. Tour and you believe that
nature is the creation. Science is just the best means we have for understanding nature. We understand a lot more about nature than we did
when the Bible was written, and it turns out that the Biblical
description of nature is just wrong. There is nothing that you nor Tour
can do about that fact. Saint Augustine understood that the Bible was
wrong about details about nature, and he admonished what you and Tour
are doing.
You do not want to fill the gaps. You only want to perpetuate the
denial of things that we have already figured out that conflict with the Biblical description. The authors of the Bible had adopted the flat
earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been civilized for
a longer period of time. The earth is not the center of the universe
with everything spinning around it. The firmament died pretty much with Kepler and his failure of his crystal spheres, and replacement with elliptical orbits. No one has been prosecuted for the heliocentric
heresy since Newton explained the orbits of the planets, including the earth, around the sun.
Gap denial is senseless in this reality.
#2. Is obviously an issue for you because you ran and refused to
describe how the origin of life gap fit into your religious beliefs.
You understand that many Biblical creationists can't deal with the god
that fits into that gap because that god is not Biblical enough. There
are a lot of Biblical creationists that can deal with the god that fit
into the Top Six gaps in their order of occurrence, but anti-evolution IDiots like you are not among them. ID perps like Behe and Denton can
deal with the Top Six because they understand that life has been
evolving on this planet for billions of years. The BioLogos Biblical creationists can deal with the Top Six, but for creationists like
yourself gap denial is just a stupid and dishonest thing to do.
we see scientific evidence of the work of an intelligent designer?*You ask regarding OoL, "What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study what happened afterwards". It matters because of The Big Question: Is “the [material] Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"? Or do
Why keep lying to yourself about this issue. It doesn't matter if some
god is responsible for filling the gaps that you put up because you do
not want to believe in that god. Filling the origin of life gap would
just result in more about nature that you have to deny.
Therefore, I'm focusing on question 1 with The Big Question in mind.Therefore, you should be focusing on something that you want to
accomplish something positive in relation to your religious beliefs, and
not something that you will end up denying in order to keep maintaining those religious beliefs. The god that fills the origin of life gap, is
not the god that anti-evolution Biblical creationists want to believe
in. If you are in denial of what science has already figured out, gap
denial doesn't do you any good. The majority of support for the
creationists ID scam has always come from the YEC and the ID perps have
lied to them about the Big Tent since the beginning. None of the YEC
can deal with the Top Six. Even the OEC IDiots at Reason to Believe
can't deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightfoward manner.
They just can't reinterpret enough of the Bible to make it work in the
order that they must have occurred in this universe.
Ron OkimotoThis video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
* I've expressed this as a dichotomy, but with possible categories like Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc, this may require refinement.
Ron Okimoto
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) >>> https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 >>> “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:Really? Apparently you didn't listen to your own cited video below:
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe
them, especially when they sound sciencey and are mixed-in with
well-known facts."
The following is a classic example of how videos from the Discovery Institute suffer from the same problems they say exist in the videos
they criticize.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) >https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
The very beginning says it's produced in collaboration with five PhD scientists. However, nowhere does it identify who are these scientists
or their fields of expertise. An irony is the video wrongly
criticizes other videos for not identifying their sources. This is a
very bad start even for a denial video.
The video is divided into several broad categories: Imagination Story
Time Land, Half Truthiland, and Outright Falsehood Jungle.
IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND (@00:31) The video claims that indicative
verbs, past tense, and passive voice imply made-up facts: The video
states:
"people say 'something must have happened' only when they're really
not sure that it happened, but want to act like they're sure that it
did happen".
Unfortunately for Discotut, this criticism is based on a quotemine.
The video they criticize doesn't use that phrase to mean as the
Discotut video says, as a baseless assertion. Instead, the context
makes it clear the phrase identifies a conditional, that the chemistry
of early life required specific functions in order to support early
life. IOW chemistries which didn't support those functions weren't
part of abiogenesis.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the example it claims as passive voice,
"these building blocks combine", isn't an example of passive voice.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that building blocks
combine. IOW the video's claim is factually incorrect.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video provides no evidence of their
claims about the motivations for using passive voice, other than a
baseless assertion. From the link in the video's description:
"(5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining
embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”).
In fact, passive voice is necessary when a causal agent is unknown,
and useful when a causal agent isn't relevant.
Unfortunately for Discotut, "slipping into the past tense" doesn't
imply anything was proven. "The RNA-only world went extinct more than
3 billion years ago" means it happened in the past. IOW the video's
claim is a baseless assertion.
Unfortunately for Discotut, their criticism that no sources were
cited, is also false. In fact, the video it criticizes identifies its sources the exact same way the Discotut video identifies its sources,
in a link in the description.
My impression is Discotut focuses on people's motives when they're
really not sure what they're talking about, but want to act like they
do. So instead they slip into Story Time Land and make up facts and
motives of the people whose videos they criticized.
HALF TRUTHILAND (@2:10) The video claims the cited videos
deliberately use half-truths to mislead. One example the Discotut
video claims to be a half-truth:
"Miller's experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on
early Earth."
and goes on to say:
"He knows they didn't use chemicals actually thought to be on a
prebiotic Earth". They were "like" them; chemicals are chemicals
after all, right."
In fact, Miller-Urey did use very basic chemicals, of the same species
as was thought to be present on a prebiotic Earth; water, methane,
ammonia, and molecular hydrogen. This is a common use for "like".
The video goes on to say:
"they used ultra-pure chemicals in extremely high concentrations that
are not found in nature and purchased them from industrial laboratory
supply shops. Where are you going to find those on a prebiotic Earth?
You won't, that's where."
Unfortunately for Discotut, these criticisms are valid only if
they significantly affected the outcome of the Miller-Urey experiment.
Not sure how even Discotut thinks the chemical sources made any
difference.
Finally, the video claims:
"Any trace amounts of useful material would have been lost in a sea of
toxic byproducts and tar."
The objection above is a pointless goalpost shift. It completely
ignores the point of the experiment, to abiotically produce biological chemicals using conditions simulating prebiotic Earth. Neither Miller
nor Urey claimed this was actually how these chemicals were made in
the past.
The video similarly goalpost shifts to handwave away the fact that
many biological chemicals are found in and from outer space. These
facts show that abiotic processes produce biological chemicals, no
vital force or purposeful intelligence required. Also, the videos the Discotut video criticize make no claims these were the processes early
life used. In summary, Discotut's claims of misleading half-truths
are at best themselves misleading half-truths.
OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD JUNGLE (@5:40) The video starts this section by
repeating the irony that the videos it criticizes don't cite their
sources (they do but it doesn't). Then the video claims that claims
of biochemical self-replication are "completely false". Then it shows
barely identifiable copies of a half-dozen articles which it claims:
"They steal things from already living things, and don't end up with anything self-replicating."
Self-replication is a straightforward concept; start with X,
regardless of source, and have it go through some process where X
produces a copy of X. Given that, I would be surprised that every
article discussing self-replicating molecules says what the video
claims they say while still passing peer review. That would require a conspiracy which included all the authors, publishers, and reviewers.
That might happen undetected with one or two papers, but it would be virtually impossible with six, nevermind everything on the subject.
The video might as well have claimed Trump won the last Presidential election.
Perhaps what the video says is a case similar to what Michael Behe
said in his Kitzmiller trial testimony, that he never saw any article
that demonstrated molecular evolution, even after he was shown a stack
of so many articles they blocked his view.
Another example the Discotut video claims is "outright false" is the following:
"Some [molecules] self-assemble into hollow spheres, almost identical
to the membranes of modern living cells"
Like Discotut's previous pedantic semantic objections to "like", the
video objects to the above use of "almost", as if these words identify precise characteristics.
Stipulating that lipid bilayer spheres aren't *exactly* like modern membranes, the facts are lipid bilayers do self-assemble into hollow spheres. They also grow and self-replicate and confine other
molecules within their volumes. These facts show the video's claim of "outright false" is at best a pointless exaggeration that handwaves
away significant evidence.
Another of Discotut's pedantic semantic objections is to the use of "remarkably similar" in the following:
"Other [molecules] self-assemble into long columns, remarkably similar
to the strands of DNA found in life."
The video goes on to elaborate their objections:
"How these stacks of disks could possibly be remarkably similar to
DNA. This has no resemblance to the structure of DNA, how it's
produced, or replicated, or how it stores information."
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video they criticize doesn't claim any
of these things. This is unsurprising, since the molecules under
discussion are not DNA nucleotides, but peptides. Not sure why
Discotut thinks peptides should be "remarkably similar" to DNA
structure, production, or replication.
And once again, the Discotut video wrongly claims the video they
criticize doesn't cite sources.
There's also a section beginning @11:17
"Why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious, belief? A big reason is something called METHODOLOGICAL
NATURALISM ( caps in GOD voice). This is a hidden philosophical
starting point, that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and
ignores all others, no matter how face-slappingly obvious."
Sound familiar?
Not sure how anybody accepts the above cited video as providing
substantive scientific arguments, while completely ignoring the face-slappingly obvious misrepresentations, baseless allusions, false
facts, and outright lies.
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
[...]
Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:40:51?PM UTC+10, jillery wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.Really? Apparently you didn't listen to your own cited video below:
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe
them, especially when they sound sciencey and are mixed-in with
well-known facts."
The following is a classic example of how videos from the Discovery
Institute suffer from the same problems they say exist in the videos
they criticize.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
acknowledgement of the incredible difficulty of this occuring prebiotically.The very beginning says it's produced in collaboration with five PhD
scientists. However, nowhere does it identify who are these scientists
or their fields of expertise. An irony is the video wrongly
criticizes other videos for not identifying their sources. This is a
very bad start even for a denial video.
The video is divided into several broad categories: Imagination Story
Time Land, Half Truthiland, and Outright Falsehood Jungle.
IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND (@00:31) The video claims that indicative
verbs, past tense, and passive voice imply made-up facts: The video
states:
"people say 'something must have happened' only when they're really
not sure that it happened, but want to act like they're sure that it
did happen".
Unfortunately for Discotut, this criticism is based on a quotemine.
The video they criticize doesn't use that phrase to mean as the
Discotut video says, as a baseless assertion. Instead, the context
makes it clear the phrase identifies a conditional, that the chemistry
of early life required specific functions in order to support early
life. IOW chemistries which didn't support those functions weren't
part of abiogenesis.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the example it claims as passive voice,
"these building blocks combine", isn't an example of passive voice.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that building blocks
combine. IOW the video's claim is factually incorrect.
Thanks for your detailed engagement, even if in disagreement. Following are my responses as time presently allows.
0:57 (SC assertion): "these building blocks combine to form highly complex and orderly structures like genes proteins and cell membranes"
1:05 (LSS response, with sarcasm): "easy as that, they just combined"
A fundamental dispute in the OoL debate is if/how simple molecules can form for complex molecules and orderly structures prebiotically. That's not a given. It's the issue being debated. But Stated Clearly blithely states this with no explanation or
The LSS response is entirely warranted, only much too gentle. This example showcases the misleading story-telling LSS alleges. Even a convinced naturalist should be concerned by this.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video provides no evidence of their
claims about the motivations for using passive voice, other than a
baseless assertion. From the link in the video's description:
"(5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining
embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”).
In fact, passive voice is necessary when a causal agent is unknown,
and useful when a causal agent isn't relevant.
Unfortunately for Discotut, "slipping into the past tense" doesn't
imply anything was proven. "The RNA-only world went extinct more than
3 billion years ago" means it happened in the past. IOW the video's
claim is a baseless assertion.
Unfortunately for Discotut, their criticism that no sources were
cited, is also false. In fact, the video it criticizes identifies its
sources the exact same way the Discotut video identifies its sources,
in a link in the description.
My impression is Discotut focuses on people's motives when they're
really not sure what they're talking about, but want to act like they
do. So instead they slip into Story Time Land and make up facts and
motives of the people whose videos they criticized.
HALF TRUTHILAND (@2:10) The video claims the cited videos
deliberately use half-truths to mislead. One example the Discotut
video claims to be a half-truth:
"Miller's experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on
early Earth."
and goes on to say:
"He knows they didn't use chemicals actually thought to be on a
prebiotic Earth". They were "like" them; chemicals are chemicals
after all, right."
In fact, Miller-Urey did use very basic chemicals, of the same species
as was thought to be present on a prebiotic Earth; water, methane,
ammonia, and molecular hydrogen. This is a common use for "like".
The video goes on to say:
"they used ultra-pure chemicals in extremely high concentrations that
are not found in nature and purchased them from industrial laboratory
supply shops. Where are you going to find those on a prebiotic Earth?
You won't, that's where."
Unfortunately for Discotut, these criticisms are valid only if
they significantly affected the outcome of the Miller-Urey experiment.
Not sure how even Discotut thinks the chemical sources made any
difference.
Finally, the video claims:
"Any trace amounts of useful material would have been lost in a sea of
toxic byproducts and tar."
The objection above is a pointless goalpost shift. It completely
ignores the point of the experiment, to abiotically produce biological
chemicals using conditions simulating prebiotic Earth. Neither Miller
nor Urey claimed this was actually how these chemicals were made in
the past.
No, it's not a "pointless goalpost shift". It's a legitimate explication that not only are the starting conditions unrealistic, but so is the output.
The video similarly goalpost shifts to handwave away the fact that
many biological chemicals are found in and from outer space. These
facts show that abiotic processes produce biological chemicals, no
vital force or purposeful intelligence required. Also, the videos the
Discotut video criticize make no claims these were the processes early
life used. In summary, Discotut's claims of misleading half-truths
are at best themselves misleading half-truths.
OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD JUNGLE (@5:40) The video starts this section by
repeating the irony that the videos it criticizes don't cite their
sources (they do but it doesn't). Then the video claims that claims
of biochemical self-replication are "completely false". Then it shows
barely identifiable copies of a half-dozen articles which it claims:
"They steal things from already living things, and don't end up with
anything self-replicating."
Self-replication is a straightforward concept; start with X,
regardless of source, and have it go through some process where X
produces a copy of X. Given that, I would be surprised that every
article discussing self-replicating molecules says what the video
claims they say while still passing peer review. That would require a
conspiracy which included all the authors, publishers, and reviewers.
That might happen undetected with one or two papers, but it would be
virtually impossible with six, nevermind everything on the subject.
The video might as well have claimed Trump won the last Presidential
election.
No need to infer they're implying a conspiracy with journal articles. Rather, I think they're saying that, again, the video is misleading by overstating the actual claims of these papers.
critically, membrane proteins etc, for control of the movement of substances in and out of a cell, being selectively permeable to ions and organic molecules.Perhaps what the video says is a case similar to what Michael Behe
said in his Kitzmiller trial testimony, that he never saw any article
that demonstrated molecular evolution, even after he was shown a stack
of so many articles they blocked his view.
Another example the Discotut video claims is "outright false" is the
following:
"Some [molecules] self-assemble into hollow spheres, almost identical
to the membranes of modern living cells"
Like Discotut's previous pedantic semantic objections to "like", the
video objects to the above use of "almost", as if these words identify
precise characteristics.
Stipulating that lipid bilayer spheres aren't *exactly* like modern
membranes, the facts are lipid bilayers do self-assemble into hollow
spheres. They also grow and self-replicate and confine other
molecules within their volumes. These facts show the video's claim of
"outright false" is at best a pointless exaggeration that handwaves
away significant evidence.
Lipid bilayer spheres on one hand are meaningfully "like" modern cells, in basic, structural sense. One the other hand, "almost identical to" the membranes of modern living cells is close to "outright false": e.g. fatty acids vs phospholipids, and
Again, the problem is the misleading impression it creates, along the lines of, "This self-assembling spherical membrane looks like a modern cell, it is even composed of amphiphilic bilayers...the rest is just details, nothing to see here."
To appreciate the full weight of their objection, see: https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?si=fhse4m_xqFWyJBij
Another of Discotut's pedantic semantic objections is to the use of
"remarkably similar" in the following:
"Other [molecules] self-assemble into long columns, remarkably similar
to the strands of DNA found in life."
The video goes on to elaborate their objections:
"How these stacks of disks could possibly be remarkably similar to
DNA. This has no resemblance to the structure of DNA, how it's
produced, or replicated, or how it stores information."
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video they criticize doesn't claim any
of these things. This is unsurprising, since the molecules under
discussion are not DNA nucleotides, but peptides. Not sure why
Discotut thinks peptides should be "remarkably similar" to DNA
structure, production, or replication.
Huh?
7:26 (Stated Clearly): "others self-assemble into long columns remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
I.e. Stated Clearly likens the peptide stacks to DNA, calling them "remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
Again, LSS tears down the misleading appropriation of superficial similarity:
7:31 (LSS): "anyone with even a basic understanding of DNA should be scratching their head at this claim, pondering how these stacks of discs could possibly be 'remarkably similar' to DNA. This has no resemblance to:
- the structure of DNA
- how it's produced or replicated or
- how it stores information"
And there's *no* self-replication.
Thank you for highlighting this example - the closer examination you have prompted leads me to conclude that the SC material here is being deliberately misleading, and deserving of the point-by-point take-down by LSS.
And once again, the Discotut video wrongly claims the video they
criticize doesn't cite sources.
There's also a section beginning @11:17
"Why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically
dubious, belief? A big reason is something called METHODOLOGICAL
NATURALISM ( caps in GOD voice). This is a hidden philosophical
starting point, that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation,
natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and
ignores all others, no matter how face-slappingly obvious."
Sound familiar?
Not sure how anybody accepts the above cited video as providing
substantive scientific arguments, while completely ignoring the
face-slappingly obvious misrepresentations, baseless allusions, false
facts, and outright lies.
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:40:51?PM UTC+10, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.Really? Apparently you didn't listen to your own cited video below:
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe
them, especially when they sound sciencey and are mixed-in with
well-known facts."
The following is a classic example of how videos from the Discovery
Institute suffer from the same problems they say exist in the videos
they criticize.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
acknowledgement of the incredible difficulty of this occuring prebiotically.The very beginning says it's produced in collaboration with five PhD
scientists. However, nowhere does it identify who are these scientists
or their fields of expertise. An irony is the video wrongly
criticizes other videos for not identifying their sources. This is a
very bad start even for a denial video.
The video is divided into several broad categories: Imagination Story
Time Land, Half Truthiland, and Outright Falsehood Jungle.
IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND (@00:31) The video claims that indicative
verbs, past tense, and passive voice imply made-up facts: The video
states:
"people say 'something must have happened' only when they're really
not sure that it happened, but want to act like they're sure that it
did happen".
Unfortunately for Discotut, this criticism is based on a quotemine.
The video they criticize doesn't use that phrase to mean as the
Discotut video says, as a baseless assertion. Instead, the context
makes it clear the phrase identifies a conditional, that the chemistry
of early life required specific functions in order to support early
life. IOW chemistries which didn't support those functions weren't
part of abiogenesis.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the example it claims as passive voice,
"these building blocks combine", isn't an example of passive voice.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that building blocks
combine. IOW the video's claim is factually incorrect.
Thanks for your detailed engagement, even if in disagreement. Following are my responses as time presently allows.
0:57 (SC assertion): "these building blocks combine to form highly complex and orderly structures like genes proteins and cell membranes"
1:05 (LSS response, with sarcasm): "easy as that, they just combined"
A fundamental dispute in the OoL debate is if/how simple molecules can form for complex molecules and orderly structures prebiotically. That's not a given. It's the issue being debated. But Stated Clearly blithely states this with no explanation or
WRT the fundamental OoL dispute, there's no question "if" these simple molecules combine, "just" or otherwise. That's a given. Thecritically, membrane proteins etc, for control of the movement of substances in and out of a cell, being selectively permeable to ions and organic molecules.
*scientific* question is *how* they would have done so on a prebiotic
Earth.
The Stated Clearly video cites several articles which suggest ways to overcome your "incredible difficulties". Perhaps you missed them the
same way your Discotut video did. From the description:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SHHfnIHXQI&t=0s>
<https://www.huffpost.com/entry/origin-of-life-rna_n_2670326>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&t=0s
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19879180/>
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-006-9059-9>
<https://exploringorigins.org/protocell.html>
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1603030113>
Keep in mind the Stated Clearly video is from a decade ago, and so the
cites are necessarily even older and don't mention more recent
research.
The LSS response is entirely warranted, only much too gentle. This example showcases the misleading story-telling LSS alleges. Even a convinced naturalist should be concerned by this.Odd that you completely ignore the fact that everything the Discotut
video says about how to detect IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND is
factually incorrect and misleading. Even a dedicated ID apologist
should be embarrassed by this.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video provides no evidence of their
claims about the motivations for using passive voice, other than a
baseless assertion. From the link in the video's description:
"(5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining
embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”).
In fact, passive voice is necessary when a causal agent is unknown,
and useful when a causal agent isn't relevant.
Unfortunately for Discotut, "slipping into the past tense" doesn't
imply anything was proven. "The RNA-only world went extinct more than
3 billion years ago" means it happened in the past. IOW the video's
claim is a baseless assertion.
Unfortunately for Discotut, their criticism that no sources were
cited, is also false. In fact, the video it criticizes identifies its
sources the exact same way the Discotut video identifies its sources,
in a link in the description.
My impression is Discotut focuses on people's motives when they're
really not sure what they're talking about, but want to act like they
do. So instead they slip into Story Time Land and make up facts and
motives of the people whose videos they criticized.
HALF TRUTHILAND (@2:10) The video claims the cited videos
deliberately use half-truths to mislead. One example the Discotut
video claims to be a half-truth:
"Miller's experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on
early Earth."
and goes on to say:
"He knows they didn't use chemicals actually thought to be on a
prebiotic Earth". They were "like" them; chemicals are chemicals
after all, right."
In fact, Miller-Urey did use very basic chemicals, of the same species
as was thought to be present on a prebiotic Earth; water, methane,
ammonia, and molecular hydrogen. This is a common use for "like".
The video goes on to say:
"they used ultra-pure chemicals in extremely high concentrations that
are not found in nature and purchased them from industrial laboratory
supply shops. Where are you going to find those on a prebiotic Earth?
You won't, that's where."
Unfortunately for Discotut, these criticisms are valid only if
they significantly affected the outcome of the Miller-Urey experiment.
Not sure how even Discotut thinks the chemical sources made any
difference.
Finally, the video claims:
"Any trace amounts of useful material would have been lost in a sea of
toxic byproducts and tar."
The objection above is a pointless goalpost shift. It completely
ignores the point of the experiment, to abiotically produce biological
chemicals using conditions simulating prebiotic Earth. Neither Miller
nor Urey claimed this was actually how these chemicals were made in
the past.
No, it's not a "pointless goalpost shift". It's a legitimate explication that not only are the starting conditions unrealistic, but so is the output.How can you say the starting conditions and output are "unrealistic"?
You don't know what the prebiotic Earth was like, or what is required
to initiate life. Nobody knows with certainty. That's the
fundamental challenge for OoL research. Meanwhile your Discotut video
claims their explanation aka ID is "face-slappingly obvious", yet they
don't even try to define the nature of their purposeful designer. What
is unrealistic here is the double-standard ID apologists apply to this non-dispute.
The video similarly goalpost shifts to handwave away the fact that
many biological chemicals are found in and from outer space. These
facts show that abiotic processes produce biological chemicals, no
vital force or purposeful intelligence required. Also, the videos the
Discotut video criticize make no claims these were the processes early
life used. In summary, Discotut's claims of misleading half-truths
are at best themselves misleading half-truths.
OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD JUNGLE (@5:40) The video starts this section by
repeating the irony that the videos it criticizes don't cite their
sources (they do but it doesn't). Then the video claims that claims
of biochemical self-replication are "completely false". Then it shows
barely identifiable copies of a half-dozen articles which it claims:
"They steal things from already living things, and don't end up with
anything self-replicating."
Self-replication is a straightforward concept; start with X,
regardless of source, and have it go through some process where X
produces a copy of X. Given that, I would be surprised that every
article discussing self-replicating molecules says what the video
claims they say while still passing peer review. That would require a
conspiracy which included all the authors, publishers, and reviewers.
That might happen undetected with one or two papers, but it would be
virtually impossible with six, nevermind everything on the subject.
The video might as well have claimed Trump won the last Presidential
election.
No need to infer they're implying a conspiracy with journal articles. Rather, I think they're saying that, again, the video is misleading by overstating the actual claims of these papers.Listen to it again. Your Discotut video challenges the scientific
papers themselves, that the papers' claims of biochemical
self-replication are "outright falsehoods", not just the claims of the criticized videos.
Perhaps what the video says is a case similar to what Michael Behe
said in his Kitzmiller trial testimony, that he never saw any article
that demonstrated molecular evolution, even after he was shown a stack
of so many articles they blocked his view.
Another example the Discotut video claims is "outright false" is the
following:
"Some [molecules] self-assemble into hollow spheres, almost identical
to the membranes of modern living cells"
Like Discotut's previous pedantic semantic objections to "like", the
video objects to the above use of "almost", as if these words identify
precise characteristics.
Stipulating that lipid bilayer spheres aren't *exactly* like modern
membranes, the facts are lipid bilayers do self-assemble into hollow
spheres. They also grow and self-replicate and confine other
molecules within their volumes. These facts show the video's claim of
"outright false" is at best a pointless exaggeration that handwaves
away significant evidence.
Lipid bilayer spheres on one hand are meaningfully "like" modern cells, in basic, structural sense. One the other hand, "almost identical to" the membranes of modern living cells is close to "outright false": e.g. fatty acids vs phospholipids, and
Again, the problem is the misleading impression it creates, along the lines of, "This self-assembling spherical membrane looks like a modern cell, it is even composed of amphiphilic bilayers...the rest is just details, nothing to see here."
To appreciate the full weight of their objection, see: https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?si=fhse4m_xqFWyJBijYour reply above only affirms these criticisms as pointless pedantic semantic objections.
Another of Discotut's pedantic semantic objections is to the use of
"remarkably similar" in the following:
"Other [molecules] self-assemble into long columns, remarkably similar
to the strands of DNA found in life."
The video goes on to elaborate their objections:
"How these stacks of disks could possibly be remarkably similar to
DNA. This has no resemblance to the structure of DNA, how it's
produced, or replicated, or how it stores information."
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video they criticize doesn't claim any
of these things. This is unsurprising, since the molecules under
discussion are not DNA nucleotides, but peptides. Not sure why
Discotut thinks peptides should be "remarkably similar" to DNA
structure, production, or replication.
Huh?
7:26 (Stated Clearly): "others self-assemble into long columns remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
I.e. Stated Clearly likens the peptide stacks to DNA, calling them "remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
Again, LSS tears down the misleading appropriation of superficial similarity:
7:31 (LSS): "anyone with even a basic understanding of DNA should be scratching their head at this claim, pondering how these stacks of discs could possibly be 'remarkably similar' to DNA. This has no resemblance to:What your Discotut video says is not in dispute here. What your "huh"
- the structure of DNA
- how it's produced or replicated or
- how it stores information"
shows is you don't understand what it means. It's claiming that
structure, replication, and information-storing are *necessary* to be considered "remarkably similar" to DNA, while the Stated Clearly video
makes *zero* claims about these things. IOW this is at best another pointless semantic objection.
And there's *no* self-replication.The authors of the papers identified by your Discotut video disagree.
Thank you for highlighting this example - the closer examination you have prompted leads me to conclude that the SC material here is being deliberately misleading, and deserving of the point-by-point take-down by LSS.
And once again, the Discotut video wrongly claims the video they
criticize doesn't cite sources.
There's also a section beginning @11:17
"Why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically
dubious, belief? A big reason is something called METHODOLOGICAL
NATURALISM ( caps in GOD voice). This is a hidden philosophical
starting point, that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation,
natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and
ignores all others, no matter how face-slappingly obvious."
Sound familiar?
Not sure how anybody accepts the above cited video as providing
substantive scientific arguments, while completely ignoring the
face-slappingly obvious misrepresentations, baseless allusions, false
facts, and outright lies.
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 9:25:51 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On 9/27/2023 9:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:15:50 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/24/2023 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
have a neat set of answers for my tentative position. That is quite different to "you ran and refused to describe how the origin of life gap fit into your religious beliefs".You can answer your own question by just filling the gaps with some godWhy keep doing this type of stupid thing? You know that you do not want >>>> to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, >>>> so how does this type of stupid denial get you anywhere? What does it
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study
what happened afterwards, and it is a fact that you can't stand reality >>>> as it exists at this time. The Top Six killing IDiocy on TO is due to
the simple fact that filling those gaps with some designer would just be >>>> more science to deny for Biblical creationists like yourself. What if
Tour could demonstrate that some god designed life 3.8 billion years ago >>>> on an earth much different than it is today?
Using the Top Six as they have been traditionally fed to the rubes as
isolated bits of denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs. It has only allowed Biblical creationists to lie to themselves >>>> about reality. That is all that you are doing.
If you aren't doing that, demonstrate that you are doing something
positive and that whatever you are doing could support your religious
beliefs. Fill the gap and what do you get?
Ron, just to check we're on the same page, are these two questions valid and applicable to this topic overall?
and seeing what you get. You know that it isn't the god that you want
to believe in, so there is no reason to pursue those gaps. Just because
science doesn't have all the answers at this time, doesn't mean that
your denial will mean anything in terms of your religious beliefs. Most
of the other Biblical creationists on TO figured that out when the Top
Six God-of-the-gaps stupidity was presented to them in a way that they
could not deny that reality. The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six,
and you have already admitted that you do not want to understand the
origin of life in terms of your religious beliefs. Just like the other
Biblical creationists you do not want to believe in the designer of the
Top Six.
We do not know the answer to #1. Tour doesn't either. All Tour knows
1. Are naturalistic explanations of the origin of life adequate?
2. If not, what might this tell about in the designer responsible for the origin of life on earth, and is this a problem for Biblical creationists?
is that he can't do any IDiotic science that would make him happy. His
excuse is that he doesn't know how to do any, but that is a lie because
there is a lot of science that can be done in the regions between the
gaps where he can get relevant answers. Tour and you believe that
nature is the creation. Science is just the best means we have for
understanding nature. We understand a lot more about nature than we did
when the Bible was written, and it turns out that the Biblical
description of nature is just wrong. There is nothing that you nor Tour
can do about that fact. Saint Augustine understood that the Bible was
wrong about details about nature, and he admonished what you and Tour
are doing.
You do not want to fill the gaps. You only want to perpetuate the
denial of things that we have already figured out that conflict with the
Biblical description. The authors of the Bible had adopted the flat
earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been civilized for
a longer period of time. The earth is not the center of the universe
with everything spinning around it. The firmament died pretty much with
Kepler and his failure of his crystal spheres, and replacement with
elliptical orbits. No one has been prosecuted for the heliocentric
heresy since Newton explained the orbits of the planets, including the
earth, around the sun.
Gap denial is senseless in this reality.
#2. Is obviously an issue for you because you ran and refused to
describe how the origin of life gap fit into your religious beliefs.
You understand that many Biblical creationists can't deal with the god
that fits into that gap because that god is not Biblical enough. There
are a lot of Biblical creationists that can deal with the god that fit
into the Top Six gaps in their order of occurrence, but anti-evolution
IDiots like you are not among them. ID perps like Behe and Denton can
deal with the Top Six because they understand that life has been
evolving on this planet for billions of years. The BioLogos Biblical
creationists can deal with the Top Six, but for creationists like
yourself gap denial is just a stupid and dishonest thing to do.
I heavily favour to OEC myself, but am also unconvinced of macroevolution (for reasons I won't go into now). Reconciling the different creationist positions with science and with biblical theology brings up different challenges in each case. I don't
we see scientific evidence of the work of an intelligent designer?*
You ask regarding OoL, "What does it matter? We do not need to know how life arose on this planet to study what happened afterwards". It matters because of The Big Question: Is “the [material] Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"? Or do
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.Why keep lying to yourself about this issue. It doesn't matter if some
god is responsible for filling the gaps that you put up because you do
not want to believe in that god. Filling the origin of life gap would
just result in more about nature that you have to deny.
Therefore, I'm focusing on question 1 with The Big Question in mind.Therefore, you should be focusing on something that you want to
accomplish something positive in relation to your religious beliefs, and
not something that you will end up denying in order to keep maintaining
those religious beliefs. The god that fills the origin of life gap, is
not the god that anti-evolution Biblical creationists want to believe
in. If you are in denial of what science has already figured out, gap
denial doesn't do you any good. The majority of support for the
creationists ID scam has always come from the YEC and the ID perps have
lied to them about the Big Tent since the beginning. None of the YEC
can deal with the Top Six. Even the OEC IDiots at Reason to Believe
can't deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightfoward manner.
They just can't reinterpret enough of the Bible to make it work in the
order that they must have occurred in this universe.
Out of interest, what is your assessment of the current state of OoL?
Ron Okimoto
* I've expressed this as a dichotomy, but with possible categories like Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc, this may require refinement.
Ron Okimoto
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) >>>>> https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 >>>>> “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ >>>>>
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic. This
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=sharedcomplexity of biology.
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=sharedthis really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=sharedchemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=sharedvideo reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hiddenphilosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage thatThe video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nuegI think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4)
https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9
“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
I think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:30:52?AM UTC+10, jillery wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:40:51?PM UTC+10, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.Really? Apparently you didn't listen to your own cited video below:
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe
them, especially when they sound sciencey and are mixed-in with
well-known facts."
The following is a classic example of how videos from the Discovery
Institute suffer from the same problems they say exist in the videos
they criticize.
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
acknowledgement of the incredible difficulty of this occuring prebiotically.The very beginning says it's produced in collaboration with five PhD
scientists. However, nowhere does it identify who are these scientists >> >> or their fields of expertise. An irony is the video wrongly
criticizes other videos for not identifying their sources. This is a
very bad start even for a denial video.
The video is divided into several broad categories: Imagination Story
Time Land, Half Truthiland, and Outright Falsehood Jungle.
IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND (@00:31) The video claims that indicative
verbs, past tense, and passive voice imply made-up facts: The video
states:
"people say 'something must have happened' only when they're really
not sure that it happened, but want to act like they're sure that it
did happen".
Unfortunately for Discotut, this criticism is based on a quotemine.
The video they criticize doesn't use that phrase to mean as the
Discotut video says, as a baseless assertion. Instead, the context
makes it clear the phrase identifies a conditional, that the chemistry >> >> of early life required specific functions in order to support early
life. IOW chemistries which didn't support those functions weren't
part of abiogenesis.
Unfortunately for Discotut, the example it claims as passive voice,
"these building blocks combine", isn't an example of passive voice.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that building blocks
combine. IOW the video's claim is factually incorrect.
Thanks for your detailed engagement, even if in disagreement. Following are my responses as time presently allows.
0:57 (SC assertion): "these building blocks combine to form highly complex and orderly structures like genes proteins and cell membranes"
1:05 (LSS response, with sarcasm): "easy as that, they just combined"
A fundamental dispute in the OoL debate is if/how simple molecules can form for complex molecules and orderly structures prebiotically. That's not a given. It's the issue being debated. But Stated Clearly blithely states this with no explanation or
WRT the fundamental OoL dispute, there's no question "if" these simple
molecules combine, "just" or otherwise. That's a given. The
*scientific* question is *how* they would have done so on a prebiotic
Earth.
The Stated Clearly video cites several articles which suggest ways to
overcome your "incredible difficulties". Perhaps you missed them the
same way your Discotut video did. From the description:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SHHfnIHXQI&t=0s>
<https://www.huffpost.com/entry/origin-of-life-rna_n_2670326>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&t=0s
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19879180/>
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-006-9059-9>
<https://exploringorigins.org/protocell.html>
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1603030113>
Keep in mind the Stated Clearly video is from a decade ago, and so the
cites are necessarily even older and don't mention more recent
research.
The LSS response is entirely warranted, only much too gentle. This example showcases the misleading story-telling LSS alleges. Even a convinced naturalist should be concerned by this.Odd that you completely ignore the fact that everything the Discotut
video says about how to detect IMAGINATION STORY TIME LAND is
factually incorrect and misleading. Even a dedicated ID apologist
should be embarrassed by this.
How can you say the starting conditions and output are "unrealistic"?Unfortunately for Discotut, the video provides no evidence of their
claims about the motivations for using passive voice, other than a
baseless assertion. From the link in the video's description:
"(5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining
embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”).
In fact, passive voice is necessary when a causal agent is unknown,
and useful when a causal agent isn't relevant.
Unfortunately for Discotut, "slipping into the past tense" doesn't
imply anything was proven. "The RNA-only world went extinct more than
3 billion years ago" means it happened in the past. IOW the video's
claim is a baseless assertion.
Unfortunately for Discotut, their criticism that no sources were
cited, is also false. In fact, the video it criticizes identifies its
sources the exact same way the Discotut video identifies its sources,
in a link in the description.
My impression is Discotut focuses on people's motives when they're
really not sure what they're talking about, but want to act like they
do. So instead they slip into Story Time Land and make up facts and
motives of the people whose videos they criticized.
HALF TRUTHILAND (@2:10) The video claims the cited videos
deliberately use half-truths to mislead. One example the Discotut
video claims to be a half-truth:
"Miller's experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on
early Earth."
and goes on to say:
"He knows they didn't use chemicals actually thought to be on a
prebiotic Earth". They were "like" them; chemicals are chemicals
after all, right."
In fact, Miller-Urey did use very basic chemicals, of the same species >> >> as was thought to be present on a prebiotic Earth; water, methane,
ammonia, and molecular hydrogen. This is a common use for "like".
The video goes on to say:
"they used ultra-pure chemicals in extremely high concentrations that
are not found in nature and purchased them from industrial laboratory
supply shops. Where are you going to find those on a prebiotic Earth?
You won't, that's where."
Unfortunately for Discotut, these criticisms are valid only if
they significantly affected the outcome of the Miller-Urey experiment. >> >> Not sure how even Discotut thinks the chemical sources made any
difference.
Finally, the video claims:
"Any trace amounts of useful material would have been lost in a sea of >> >> toxic byproducts and tar."
The objection above is a pointless goalpost shift. It completely
ignores the point of the experiment, to abiotically produce biological >> >> chemicals using conditions simulating prebiotic Earth. Neither Miller
nor Urey claimed this was actually how these chemicals were made in
the past.
No, it's not a "pointless goalpost shift". It's a legitimate explication that not only are the starting conditions unrealistic, but so is the output.
You don't know what the prebiotic Earth was like, or what is required
to initiate life. Nobody knows with certainty. That's the
fundamental challenge for OoL research. Meanwhile your Discotut video
claims their explanation aka ID is "face-slappingly obvious", yet they
don't even try to define the nature of their purposeful designer. What
is unrealistic here is the double-standard ID apologists apply to this
non-dispute.
Listen to it again. Your Discotut video challenges the scientificThe video similarly goalpost shifts to handwave away the fact that
many biological chemicals are found in and from outer space. These
facts show that abiotic processes produce biological chemicals, no
vital force or purposeful intelligence required. Also, the videos the
Discotut video criticize make no claims these were the processes early >> >> life used. In summary, Discotut's claims of misleading half-truths
are at best themselves misleading half-truths.
OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD JUNGLE (@5:40) The video starts this section by
repeating the irony that the videos it criticizes don't cite their
sources (they do but it doesn't). Then the video claims that claims
of biochemical self-replication are "completely false". Then it shows
barely identifiable copies of a half-dozen articles which it claims:
"They steal things from already living things, and don't end up with
anything self-replicating."
Self-replication is a straightforward concept; start with X,
regardless of source, and have it go through some process where X
produces a copy of X. Given that, I would be surprised that every
article discussing self-replicating molecules says what the video
claims they say while still passing peer review. That would require a
conspiracy which included all the authors, publishers, and reviewers.
That might happen undetected with one or two papers, but it would be
virtually impossible with six, nevermind everything on the subject.
The video might as well have claimed Trump won the last Presidential
election.
No need to infer they're implying a conspiracy with journal articles. Rather, I think they're saying that, again, the video is misleading by overstating the actual claims of these papers.
papers themselves, that the papers' claims of biochemical
self-replication are "outright falsehoods", not just the claims of the
criticized videos.
critically, membrane proteins etc, for control of the movement of substances in and out of a cell, being selectively permeable to ions and organic molecules.Perhaps what the video says is a case similar to what Michael Behe
said in his Kitzmiller trial testimony, that he never saw any article
that demonstrated molecular evolution, even after he was shown a stack >> >> of so many articles they blocked his view.
Another example the Discotut video claims is "outright false" is the
following:
"Some [molecules] self-assemble into hollow spheres, almost identical
to the membranes of modern living cells"
Like Discotut's previous pedantic semantic objections to "like", the
video objects to the above use of "almost", as if these words identify >> >> precise characteristics.
Stipulating that lipid bilayer spheres aren't *exactly* like modern
membranes, the facts are lipid bilayers do self-assemble into hollow
spheres. They also grow and self-replicate and confine other
molecules within their volumes. These facts show the video's claim of
"outright false" is at best a pointless exaggeration that handwaves
away significant evidence.
Lipid bilayer spheres on one hand are meaningfully "like" modern cells, in basic, structural sense. One the other hand, "almost identical to" the membranes of modern living cells is close to "outright false": e.g. fatty acids vs phospholipids, and
makes it "remarkably similar"?Your reply above only affirms these criticisms as pointless pedantic
Again, the problem is the misleading impression it creates, along the lines of, "This self-assembling spherical membrane looks like a modern cell, it is even composed of amphiphilic bilayers...the rest is just details, nothing to see here."
To appreciate the full weight of their objection, see: https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?si=fhse4m_xqFWyJBij
semantic objections.
What your Discotut video says is not in dispute here. What your "huh"Another of Discotut's pedantic semantic objections is to the use of
"remarkably similar" in the following:
"Other [molecules] self-assemble into long columns, remarkably similar >> >> to the strands of DNA found in life."
The video goes on to elaborate their objections:
"How these stacks of disks could possibly be remarkably similar to
DNA. This has no resemblance to the structure of DNA, how it's
produced, or replicated, or how it stores information."
Unfortunately for Discotut, the video they criticize doesn't claim any >> >> of these things. This is unsurprising, since the molecules under
discussion are not DNA nucleotides, but peptides. Not sure why
Discotut thinks peptides should be "remarkably similar" to DNA
structure, production, or replication.
Huh?
7:26 (Stated Clearly): "others self-assemble into long columns remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
I.e. Stated Clearly likens the peptide stacks to DNA, calling them "remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life"
Again, LSS tears down the misleading appropriation of superficial similarity:
7:31 (LSS): "anyone with even a basic understanding of DNA should be scratching their head at this claim, pondering how these stacks of discs could possibly be 'remarkably similar' to DNA. This has no resemblance to:
- the structure of DNA
- how it's produced or replicated or
- how it stores information"
shows is you don't understand what it means. It's claiming that
structure, replication, and information-storing are *necessary* to be
considered "remarkably similar" to DNA, while the Stated Clearly video
makes *zero* claims about these things. IOW this is at best another
pointless semantic objection.
SC claims that the peptide columns are "remarkably similar to the strands of DNA found in life". If this remarkable similarity is not due to structure, replication, information-storing, and self-replication, then what is it due to? What feature exactly
An accurate and honest description in this case would be "superficial similarity". This is far from pointless semantics. It's close to being grossly misleading...aka OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD JUNGLE.
And there's *no* self-replication.The authors of the papers identified by your Discotut video disagree.
Thank you for highlighting this example - the closer examination you have prompted leads me to conclude that the SC material here is being deliberately misleading, and deserving of the point-by-point take-down by LSS.
And once again, the Discotut video wrongly claims the video they
criticize doesn't cite sources.
There's also a section beginning @11:17
"Why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically
dubious, belief? A big reason is something called METHODOLOGICAL
NATURALISM ( caps in GOD voice). This is a hidden philosophical
starting point, that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, >> >> natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and
ignores all others, no matter how face-slappingly obvious."
Sound familiar?
Not sure how anybody accepts the above cited video as providing
substantive scientific arguments, while completely ignoring the
face-slappingly obvious misrepresentations, baseless allusions, false
facts, and outright lies.
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 05:35:44 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" ><brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is ?o.?Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic. This
life researchers ?heat?by using purified chemicals that don? reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don? report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that destroys the building
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) >>> https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We?e often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life? building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that? what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how origin of
of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don? come anywhere close to accounting for the vast complexity
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the ?NA World?and ?NA-Peptide World?hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.?
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 >>> ?but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
I think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ >>
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
FWIW, you can do both. Prof. Dave's video description has links to
all of the papers he talks about. In addition, his videos provide
useful context on how these papers are relevant to Tour's comments.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:40:52 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9) https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage thatThe video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how
complexity of biology.BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5) https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6) https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8) https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”LONG STORY SHORT https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9 “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nuegI think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNkI'm well familiar with Dave Farina's work (but did review these). Tour's 60 Day Challenge came out of his "debate" with Farina and other YouTube dueling.
I wish Farina had chosen to debate Tour on the basis of the science in these and others, rather than simply abuse and personal attack. I also wish Tour would slow down and be more concise and less shouty with his arguments.
It remains to be seen if this public exchange will lead to any useful advances for either position. It does create selection pressure on the arguments and approaches of both - an outside chance of microevolution in their thinking...
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:20:53?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:40:52?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this topic.
how origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4)
https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows
complexity of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
is this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But
chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the challenges
video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9
“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
I'm well familiar with Dave Farina's work (but did review these). Tour's 60 Day Challenge came out of his "debate" with Farina and other YouTube dueling.I think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
I wish Farina had chosen to debate Tour on the basis of the science in these and others, rather than simply abuse and personal attack. I also wish Tour would slow down and be more concise and less shouty with his arguments.
It remains to be seen if this public exchange will lead to any useful advances for either position. It does create selection pressure on the arguments and approaches of both - an outside chance of microevolution in their thinking...
Of course this exchange will not lead to useful advances for either position. Useful advances come from the people doing experiments and writing research papers, not from folks shouting on Youtube.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 02:41:42 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:representative of talks from Jack Szostak, Nick Lane, David Deamer and Bruce Damer, etc.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:20:53?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:40:52?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:25:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Is OoL research in worse shape than is generally admitted?
In company with James Tour [1] and William Bains [2], the following video critiques YouTube presentations which promote natural explanations of OoL simplistically and misleadingly. While these are popular science videos, they are reasonably
topic. This video reviews popular claims made about the origin of life and shows why they are contradicted by the evidence, misleading, or flat out false.
The fact that the following video series can be made, and made with substantive scientific arguments, is further evidence that all is not well in the House of OoL:
YOU CAN'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR (Long Story Short, Ep. 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?feature=shared
Can you trust everything you hear about the origin of life? The short answer is “No.” Many popular science expositors overstate the evidence for the natural, chemical origin of life and promote gross misinformation to the public on this
how origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that
The video above is the most recent in the following series. Enjoy.
THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Long Story Short, Ep. 4)
https://youtu.be/MFtnwriQRi8?feature=shared
We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows
complexity of biology.
BIOPOLYMERS (Long Story Short, Ep. 5)
https://youtu.be/Qxm3yVTcZ4E?feature=shared
This video deals with one particular challenge to evolving life from chemicals: forming biopolymers under natural conditions. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast
is this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes.
CELL MEMBRANES (Long Story Short, Ep. 6)
https://youtu.be/BHRcPTS1VHc?feature=shared
Cells can't exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But
challenges chemical evolution would have faced in order to harness the energy needed to originate the first life.
ENERGY HARNESSING (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
https://youtu.be/CMl5RinuAlw?feature=shared
Chemical evolution would have required a continuous supply of energy to create the first life. But are the energy sources that have been proposed for chemical evolution realistic? In this episode of Long Story Short, explore some of the
This video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
REPLICATION (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)
https://youtu.be/zK3jQtzIHLI?feature=shared
What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this?
philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
LONG STORY SHORT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9
“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden
I'm well familiar with Dave Farina's work (but did review these). Tour's 60 Day Challenge came out of his "debate" with Farina and other YouTube dueling.I think that if you want to understand OoL research you should read the papers rather than watching youtube videos. But, if you want to watch youtube, you can hear the other side of the story here.....
-----
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/w8hMsfdqBgAJ
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
I wish Farina had chosen to debate Tour on the basis of the science in these and others, rather than simply abuse and personal attack. I also wish Tour would slow down and be more concise and less shouty with his arguments.
It remains to be seen if this public exchange will lead to any useful advances for either position. It does create selection pressure on the arguments and approaches of both - an outside chance of microevolution in their thinking...
Of course this exchange will not lead to useful advances for either position. Useful advances come from the people doing experiments and writing research papers, not from folks shouting on Youtube.Perhaps that's why Prof. Dave devoted so much time "shouting on
Youtube" about over 50 relevant research papers.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 88:12:34 |
| Calls: | 6,922 |
| Files: | 12,382 |
| Messages: | 5,433,810 |