Mind Upload: Scientists forecast successful digitisation of human consciousness by end of 2023

[write4u]

7 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

The "hard fact" is abiogenesis remains an unproven theory of how life began.

I do believe that Abiogenesis enjoys a much greater scientific confidence than say wave/[article duality.

The science of abiogenesis has become an idealized concept of an event that happened over millions of years of "cooking" chemicals, in gradual steps a molecule at a time, until a self-sustaining pattern formed as Prokaryotes and from there the  Eukaryotes with ability to grow into giants (mammoths) as well as at insect scale.  (Hazen)

Abiogenesis has long been demonstrated as what humans have named "origin" (of life) and the process whereby bio-chemical patterns acquire dynamical abilities.

We are watching it in action everyday. Do you really think that abiogenesis began with a single event?  How many tries and failures were tested by natural selection before a rudimentary cell pattern formed and acquired abilities above the sum of its parts such as motility and self-duplication. Abiogenesis is happening every day and natural selection is responsible for the success or failure of the experiment as it has done since the beginning of Earth itself. (Hazen)

There might as well have been  7 points of origin on earth, each based on the same ancestor chemicals but each evolving into different biological life forms, dependent on the environmental conditions. Where did all the extremophiles come from?

Quote

extremophile, an organism that is tolerant to environmental extremes and that has evolved to grow optimally under one or more of these extreme conditions, hence the suffix phile, meaning “one who loves.”

https://www.britannica.com/science/extremophile

Note that Eukaryotic organisms all share microtubules that allowed for a much greater complex data processing and the resulting emergence of self-awareness  at all levels of sophistication from slime mold to humans. Communication begins at cellular level and complex organisms have complex cellular communication and understanding of their relationship with reality.

I always remember Tegmark's question: "What is the difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle?" 

Answer: "Nothing!  All parts of the beetle are present in each state. The difference lies in the pattern arrangement of the parts".

I find that a persuasive argument.

Edited May 9, 2023 by write4u

[OceanBreeze]

18 minutes ago, write4u said:

I do believe that Abiogenesis enjoys a much greater scientific confidence than say wave/[article duality.

The science of abiogenesis has become an idealized concept of an event that happened over millions of years of "cooking" chemicals, in gradual steps a molecule at a time, until a self-sustaining pattern formed as Prokaryotes and from there the  Eukaryotes with ability to grow into giants (mammoths) as well as at insect scale.  (Hazen)

Abiogenesis has long been demonstrated as what humans have named "origin" (of life) and the process whereby bio-chemical patterns acquire dynamical abilities.

We are watching it in action everyday. Do you really think that abiogenesis began with a single event?  How many tries and failures were tested by natural selection before a rudimentary cell pattern formed and acquired abilities above the sum of its parts such as motility and self-duplication. Abiogenesis is happening every day and natural selection is responsible for the success or failure of the experiment as it has done since the beginning of Earth itself.

There might as well have been  7 points of origin on earth, each based on the same ancestor chemicals but each evolving into different biological life forms, dependent on the environmental conditions.

Note that Eukaryotic organisms all share microtubules that allowed for a much greater complex data processing and the resulting emergence of self-awareness  at all levels of sophistication from slime mold to humans. Communication begins at cellular level and complex organisms have complex cellular communication and understanding of their relationship with reality.

You continue to make statements that are easily shown to be false. That does not help your argument at all.

For example: "We are watching it in action everyday"

We are? You must be confusing evolution with abiogenesis as nobody has ever observed abiogenesis in action anywhere; not in the lab and not in nature.

Since you claim otherwise I must ask you to provide a source.

Next one: "Abiogenesis is happening every day and natural selection is responsible for the success or failure of the experiment"

Again, you must be confusing abiogenesis with evolution, where mutations happen and the mutations are subject to natural selection. That is not abiogenesis and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

I am beginning to wonder if you even know what abiogenesis is!

And this: "Abiogenesis has long been demonstrated as what humans have named "origin" (of life) and the process whereby bio-chemical patterns acquire dynamical abilities."

You need to back this up or withdraw it. The fact is, abiogenesis is a theory that has never been demonstrated anywhere by anyone.

Here are the problems with that theory:

1)  One such problem involves polymerization. The thermodynamic equilibrium of amino acid versus peptides is in the direction of separate amino acids. However, a force that drives polymerization is missing. The random association of single amino acids into one short protein string of 100 amino acids without some enzymatic help could take an incredible amount of time, longer than the age of the earth. Several mechanisms for such polymerization have been suggested, but the resolution of this problem may well be in the properties of polyphosphates. Polyphosphates are formed by polymerization of ordinary monophosphate ions PO₄⁻³. Polyphosphates cause polymerization of amino acids into peptides. They are also the logical precursors in the synthesis of key biochemical compounds such as ATP. A key issue seems to be that calcium reacts with soluble phosphate to form insoluble calcium phosphate (apatite), so some plausible mechanism must be found to keep calcium ions from causing precipitation of phosphate.

2) Experiments that show how simple organic molecules can form (like the Miller-Urey experiment) depend on the assumption that the early earth was a reducing environment, having little oxygen. However, current scientific consensus describes the primitive atmosphere as either a weakly-reducing or neutral. Such an atmosphere would diminish both the amount and variety of amino acids that could be produced.

3) One further problem confronting many abiogenesis models is homochirality. Homochirality is the term used to describe all building blocks in living organisms having the same “handedness” (amino acids being left-handed, nucleic acid sugars (ribose and deoxyribose) being right-handed, and chiral phosphoglycerides). Some process in chemical evolution must account for the origin of this phenomenon. Chiral molecules can be synthesized, but in the absence of a chiral source or a chiral catalyst, they are formed in a 50/50 mixture of both enantiomer.

What may save the theory of abiogenesis  is the idea that the early earth was actually bombarded by extraterrestrial organic molecules and it was these molecules which led to life on earth. But, even this theory of extraterrestrial abiogenesis still needs to be able to explain how simple organic molecules make the leap to the complex protocells of life. As of now, there is still no answer to that question.

I will provide my source for this post.

In the future, when you make a claim as if it is a fact you will be asked to provide your source. You are a valued poster on this forum but you need to do better than this.

[write4u]

1 hour ago, OceanBreeze said:

We are? You must be confusing evolution with abiogenesis as nobody has ever observed abiogenesis in action anywhere; not in the lab and not in nature.

Mitosis is a form of abiogenesis. It takes biochemicals and arranges them into a living cell.  Each living cell is made up of biochemicals, also known as bio-molecules and molecules are not living things.

 

Though molecules are not themselves alive, they are still essential in making up the structure of living things.Feb 22, 2022

https://study.com/academy/lesson/molecules-in-living-organisms-number-size.html#

 

As Tegmark posits it is not the substrate, but the pattern in which the substrate is organized and from which both living and conscious properties emerge.

Edited May 9, 2023 by write4u

[OceanBreeze]

4 hours ago, write4u said:

Mitosis is a form of abiogenesis. It takes biochemicals and arranges them into a living cell.  Each living cell is made up of biochemicals, also known as bio-molecules and molecules are not living things.

 

Though molecules are not themselves alive, they are still essential in making up the structure of living things.Feb 22, 2022

https://study.com/academy/lesson/molecules-in-living-organisms-number-size.html#

 

As Tegmark posits it is not the substrate, but the pattern in which the substrate is organized and from which both living and conscious properties emerge.

WRONG

Mitosis is an important part of cell theory and has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Your source does not support your claim at all.

I am tired of correcting you but I cannot allow for the incorrect claims you continue to make.

[write4u]

I am willing to learn. Can you do better than my practical observation? 

I know about the scientific method. But it often over-complicates discussion.

You say I am wrong and I am perfectly willing to be corrected, but then you admit that the entirety of science doesn't know either.

Am I wrong in suggesting that today abiogenesis may well be happening?  How many times has abiogenesis happened in the past?

All I am saying is that it is an ongoing process and I can see no specific argument against that notion.

Quote

Abiogenesis

In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.

 

 

Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules, to the largely unknown, like the derivation of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with its complex molecular functionalities.^[1]

more ......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Edited May 9, 2023 by write4u

[OceanBreeze]

I have patiently explained that, contrary to your claims, abiogenesis has never been observed and remains an unverified hypothesis or theory.

I have shown you where you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis and now you have resorted to claiming that mitosis, which is cell theory, is a type of abiogenesis.

You say you are willing to learn but I do not see that in your stubborn resistance to accept that you are wrong and continue to post ever more wrong claims.

There are competing theories for the origins of life on earth, but this goes well beyond what this thread is about.

The question posed in the opening post has been answered so this thread is now closed.