/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10206974]

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-life-deep-earth-totals-billion.html

Can we all agree, finally, that the concept of life from non-life and "primordial soup" is pseudoscientific nonsense?

[Anonymous No.10206975]

>>10206974
so life existed aethernally?

[Anonymous No.10206985]

>>10206975
Demanding definite answers in a complete lack of evidence -- what you are doing right now -- is a hallmark of pseudoscience. I don't know where or how life arose. Given how prolific it is in rocks, it sure seems more and more improbable to operate on an oceanic, or even a terrestrial model.

[Anonymous No.10206997]

>>10206985
what the fuck are you talking about man? I asked you if life existed aethernally and that what you implied in the OP stating that concept of life from non life is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10207005]

>>10206997
>I asked you if life existed aethernally
Right. And since you asked a complete nonsense question with a made up non-word being critical to meaning, I took a guess at what you were asking. Apparently I was wrong. You are not actually interested in the topic. You are seeking to bludgeon people you disagree with you using your incredulity and gibberish as a sort of verbal weapon. Suck on the darkest cock you can find.

[Anonymous No.10207019]

>>10206974
No anon, this is SCIENCE. Science says we came from nothing, so it must be true. You should believe in science too anon.

[Anonymous No.10207061]

>>10206974
How do all these life get inside rocks?

[Anonymous No.10207122]

There has never been a shred of evidence for any of the current abiogenesis models. Not saying God dun it, just saying that no one has idea how it was done at this point. My gut feeling says we came from a different planet piggy backing on meteors, and this different planet has radically different conditions than earth that make abiogenesis possible.

[Anonymous No.10207134]

>>10207019
Probably samefagging.
>Science says we came from nothing,
What does that even mean? That just sounds like some standard nonsense a creationist would say. What do you mean by "we came from nothing", and what do you mean by that Science "says" it?

>... so it must be true.
Are you just trying to make Science look like a religion?

>believe in science
Science is not propositional, and thus has no truth value, and thus cannot be held as true, and thus cannot be believed in. Science is something you do, not something you believe in.

[Anonymous No.10207141]

>>10207122
I mean, I don't know of any reason to think abiogenesis is impossible on Earth, and unnecessarily adding another element to the cause-and-effect chain kind of goes against Occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.10207156]

>>10207141
We have a tremendous understanding of the chemistry of small organic molecules under earth-like and even early earth-like conditions, and no one demonstrate creation of cells or organelles. The closest anyone has come is showing synthesis of amino acids in the lab under extremely specific conditons, but we already know synthesis of amino acids can happen readily in comets in nature. So if you want to be a brainlet and think Occam's Razor means anything, the current evidence suggest life is easier to make on comets than on earth. Really though, its still an irrelevant discussion because how you get from simple amino acids to life is still anyone's guess.

[Anonymous No.10207201]

>>10207156
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess it's also not that much of a productive thing to talk about, since most of the hypotheses we may argue over can't really be tested currently.

[Anonymous No.10207233]

>>10207134
>implying science is 100% unbiased and deliberate data falsification doesn't happen all the time

[Anonymous No.10207267]

>>10207005
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

[Anonymous No.10207273]

>>10206985
DNA is just advance mineral crystallization, in a way, so "life" is just as probable as fire on sulfur after a lightning storm. As likely and as guaranteed as a crystal forming in the right environment with the right materials present. That crystal will always form. That DNA will always origin and advance until conditions don't allow.

[Anonymous No.10207275]

>>10207061
through an aggregate and compounding process, similar conceptually, abstractly, and also literally to the formation of a geode crystal inside of a rock.

[Anonymous No.10207277]

>>10207061
>>10206974

yeah no shit, Lithotrophs exist, stop the fucking press.
they simply found more than they expected because we still know fuckall about Archea and Bacteria in general.

[Anonymous No.10207314]

>>10207134
>claiming that science isn’t a religion while at the same time unknowingly treating it as your religion

[Anonymous No.10207436]

>>10207134
>Science cant be believed in
So you don't believe in climate change.

[Anonymous No.10207458]

>>10207273

A DNA nucleotide is a lot more complex than an ion in a mineral though.

[Anonymous No.10207473]

>>10207314
Imagine being so spiritually undeveloped you think the fucking lovers of science were acting religious.

[Anonymous No.10207479]

>>10207314
You are saying this while posting on the internet using a machine that works on science.

Theoretical science is exactly that, theoretical.But claiming that all science is like a religion is completely fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.10207566]

Sky man did it xD

[Anonymous No.10207882]

>>10207277
>yeah no shit, Lithotrophs exist, stop the fucking press.
>they simply found more than they expected
The brainlet thinks that anything is "simple" when he is in fact just projecting his own personality. It's not so simple at all. Since we know next to nothing about the life in the lithosphere, there are a million possible implications for this finding.

I am the OP, and this >>10207314 is not me, but it's basically the essence of my topic. I can't count the number of times I've seen references to "primordial soup" in so-called science textbooks or parroted by science teachers in universities, even though it's literal pseudoscience with zero empirical support.

[Anonymous No.10207887]

>>10207566
Not my implication at all. All I mean to draw attention to is the fact that the prolificacy of life inside of rocks, at extreme temperatures and pressures, the fact that certain species are found at totally different ends of the planet, offers a possible route for life to travel to Earth. What do you think is going to happen to those organisms if a giant meteor strikes the Earth, blasting giant chunks of rock in every direction? All it is right now is a hypothesis, but there are significantly more pieces of evidence behind the extraterrestrial seeding hypothesis than the primordial soup hypothesis.
1. Meteoroids commonly collide with each other and with planets
2. Interstellar objects may be more common than previously believed (Oumuamua was discovered within the first 10 years of operation of the Pan-STARRS telescope)
3. Bacteria have survived a trip to the Moon, completely unprotected (Streptococcus mitis, in one of the Apollo missions)
4. Life in the Earth's lithosphere is prolific and widespread, even though we have no idea how they got there or anything about their life cycles
5. Life-like structures have been observed in Martian rock (alternative, inorganic hypotheses exist)

And even after all that, there is no explanation for how life arose from non-life. I see no need to offer answers to people about the topic when there is zero evidence. I am not a believer in God. I just don't like it when people try to pass off speculation as if it were science.

[Anonymous No.10208002]

>>10207479
>using a machine that works on science.
I didn't know that my computer was powered by sciencons. I thought it was powered by electricity.

[Anonymous No.10208457]

>>10206974
>We evolved from Rocks

[Anonymous No.10208539]

>>10207882
In my experience the term primordial soup has always been acknowledged as only a rough description, often stated in dubious quotation marks like you've done. Obviously empirical evidence to describe complex chemical mechanisms occurring billions of years ago is hard to come by. Chemical mechanisms are hard to determine with high specificity while monitoring the reaction with modern analytical equipment and intentionally stopping the reaction in numerous instances in order to see what products are existing in the mixture; but, you want people to piece together something similar for processes billions of years ago, and nobody is allowed to suggest explanations on this topic if your unreasonable expectations of evidence are not met? Even if abiogenesis did not occur on Earth and occurred on a comet or something instead, what's the difference? Their explanation is based on intuition from established observable facts, do you have a different comparably-supported explanation?

[Anonymous No.10208946]

>>10208539
So just because I don't buy into your bullshit, I'm required to present my own, fully researched idea? That is such a boomer way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.10209088]

>>10208946
>>10206974
>Can we all agree, finally, that the concept of life from non-life and "primordial soup" is pseudoscientific nonsense?
You have presented a position - the notion that everybody should agree with your disbelief in a certain theory, and that the theory is pseudoscientific nonsense. But you don't provide anything to support this, whereas the group whose position you are attempting to undermine is demonstrably more convincing.

[Anonymous No.10209187]

>life exists deep into the crust
>therefore life couldn't possibly have arisen in the oceans
???

let me just say in my professional opinion as a paleontologist that you're a dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.10209637]

>>10209088
>disbelief in bad science is a "position"
>PROVE IT!!!
You're an idiot. Skepticism of a pseudoscientific assertion that has no empirical evidence is not a claim requiting a burden of proof. Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.10209652]

>>10207134
>Science is not propositional, and thus has no truth value, and thus cannot be held as true, and thus cannot be believed in.
the last statement here doesn't follow.
the fact that science is not propositional and thus has no truth value is exactly why it IS only something to be believed in.
You do not "believe in" truth, truth is.
You have to believe in Empiricism, because it's not true.

[Anonymous No.10210880]

>>10206974
I think so too. Life probably came from an asteroid.

[Anonymous No.10211097]

>>10206974
>>10207156

Even if "primordial soup" doesn't describe accurately the origins of life on Earth I think all that is required is sunlight, humidity, consistent warmth and the raw ingredients. The building blocks to ribonucleic acid or viruses or the constituent parts of an amino acid. I think of an incubator or the opposite settings that we would have food stored in.

A reaction with lightning or plasma could have helped along the transition from perfunctory pieces of minerals or elements that become tiny organisms. The viruses remained in the state of being functional yet mechanistically unliving and had limited complexity with no room for expansion. Other microscopic life emerged with the compulsion of acquiring caloric energy for the purpose of growing and evolving.

And maybe there was some moonlight or starlight that reflected off a pool of water and hit your eye like a big pizza pie its amore.

[Anonymous No.10211282]

>>10211097
>Even if "primordial soup" doesn't describe accurately the origins of life on Earth I think all that is required is sunlight, humidity, consistent warmth and the raw ingredients. The building blocks to ribonucleic acid or viruses or the constituent parts of an amino acid. I think of an incubator or the opposite settings that we would have food stored in.
Back in the 19th century, "scientists" theorized that the atom was shaped like plum pudding because they looked at their selection of English desserts and thought that surely it must be so, too. It's pseudoscience, bud.

>A reaction with lightning or plasma could have helped along the transition from perfunctory pieces of minerals or elements that become tiny organisms.
A bolt of lightning would fucking destroy any complex organic molecules and convert them to CO2 and H2O, bud.
>The viruses remained in the state of being functional yet mechanistically unliving and had limited complexity with no room for expansion.
Again, pseudoscience. There is no evidence to suggest that viruses are precursors to life. Since they can't replicate without existing cells, it's not even logical to think that the virus came before the cell.
Other microscopic life emerged with the compulsion of acquiring caloric energy for the purpose of growing and evolving.
With the compulsion? What?
>And maybe there was some moonlight or starlight that reflected off a pool of water and hit your eye like a big pizza pie its amore.
It's pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10211321]

>>10206974

How does this show that?

[Anonymous No.10211352]

>>10206974
primordial ooze, more like primordial snooze am I right

[Anonymous No.10211709]

>121C is 21 degrees above the boiling point of water
>71C is about the temperature of well done steak
What the fuck happened to Phys.org? Are their target audience now literal retards?

[Anonymous No.10211717]

>>10207458
and because of that a DNA nucleotide takes far more time to crystallize than a relatively simple lump of a mineral
news flash, earth is real fuckin old

[Anonymous No.10211751]

>>10207156
>We have a tremendous understanding of the chemistry of small organic molecules under earth-like and even early earth-like conditions, and no one demonstrate creation of cells or organelles. The closest anyone has come is showing synthesis of amino acids in the lab under extremely specific conditons,

how do you replicate the billions of years of large scale evolution required to create DNA for those cells etc. in a laboratory environment?