How come there are only 3 possible explanations for abiogenesis,

>>8474448
How have they been disproved? Not being deliberately obtuse, genuinely curious.

please explain how RNA world has been disproved

>>8474466

"Primordial Soup" -
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
"RNA World" - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/
"Metabolism First" - http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Ignore the websites, but they have good facts.

>>8474504
>study to answer
>creation.com

You seriously believe everything you read?

>OP doesn't know of the protein world hypothesis aka the great juju's menstrual flood

>>8474504
>ignore the fact that creation.com does nothing in science, uses nothing to do with any scientific shit at all and only believes and publishes shit from "scientists" that support their retarded "science"
>but they got good "facts" tho

>>8474517
the specific sites I listed do have good information.

RNA can function as an enzyme as well as an information molecule.

File: 1479113351562.jpg (5KB, 242x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 242x200px

>>8474504
>creation.com

not biased at all

>>8474528
A very cursory reading of the creation.com article reveals that it's filled with deliberate disinformation. Just one example.

>The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then ‘widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen’. They believed this because ‘laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen’.28 Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the ‘fact’ of chemical evolution is used as ‘proof’ of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, ‘We still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose.’29

The earth's early atmosphere isn't assumed a priori to not contain much oxygen because it could 'desteoy evolution,' it's assumed to contain little oxygen because banded iron formations and other signs of increased O2 didn't appear until about a billion years after the planet formed. The whole fucking article is written with the assumption that biologists are deliberately colluding in some sort of conspiracy to bash the Bible. It's stupid.

But anyways, to answer your question. The reason no one theory properly explains abiogenesis is that we simply don't know enough about early proto-life to make informed conclusions that are very specific. We may never know.

>how come finding an elementary particle would refute materialism since said particle could not have appeared by material means?
>how come our supposedly illusory experience is the only thing that keeps going when we look away?
>how come positivism has come to resemble the worst caricature of christian fundamentalism?

We have to be mindful of God's capacity for comedy.

>>8474448
Pol baiting please go

>>8474568

But that IS an assumption. The link between the supposed lack of oxygen and the empirical (?) lack of iron formations is done after the fact.

>>8474448
>>8474504
Wow, 4chan really is becoming the new Facebook. Facebook has drowned in fake news links because any moron can now find a story to corroborate any belief they choose, no matter how provably wrong it is.

Apparently the same is now true even for science. I guess the academic publications are next. Now we can thoroughly prove Intelligent Design by citing a hundred papers cranked out of third-world sweatshops.

>>8474585
No its not, it's a strawman at best purposely telling you it's a magic assumption without telling you the reasoning behind the inference

Inference =/= assumption

They inferred that there would be less oxygen because of that indirect evidence which is correct

>>8474528
>good information
It's garbage information, they've done nothing but post their bias all over the work. It's a huge bias to only look for things you agree with and ignore things you don't, that's not science that's cognitive dissonance

>>8474588
the same could be said for abiogenesis anon-kun

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

>>8474588
>implying this hasn't been true since day fucking one
90% of the shit posted to /pol/ in the entire history of the board in all its incarnations has been fake news. A lot of similar bullshit gets posted on other boards too, but there's usually enough people who are genuinely autistic about the field that it gets called out.

>>8474448
why are some of you guys so eager to prove that science doesnt know everything? Of course it doesn't, and it's not afraid to say so.
"How come there are only 3 possible explanations for abiogenesis". Simply because scientist don't know enough yet about why life happened.

RNA world hasn't been disproven exactly, just suspected to be insufficient. I think the current leading idea is some combination of RNA world concurrent with random assortments of primordial proteins.

>>8475883
>implying

Give me 5 examples that aren't obvious shitposting or purposeful propoganda.

Often /pol/ bases itself off of videos and legally documented papers like laws passed, as well as verifiable leaked government documents.

Stay mad that those "uneducated hicks" on /pol/ are doing more in the world than you are with your degrees, /sci/.

>>8474448
This is my dream job -- to work in a biophysics research group that uses mathematical/physical chemical modeling to understand the emergence of self-replicating molecules (prions and nucleotides).

Here's my favorite article on the subject: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

I strongly believe that the answer to the question lies in statistical mechanics and statistical/thermo. interpretations of entropy -- specifically what this research group is discovering about RNA's ability to radiate input energy to the Universe; therefore, having a favorable entropic component.

>>8475889
I don't think many people share your perspective, unfortunately. We all like to believe we know more than we really do.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm

>>8476344
This. The scientific community has been plagued by arrogant "I can PROVE everything with science (sigh, anytime someone uses prove in the context of science it makes me cringe...).

All you have to do is walk into a room of "scientists" and question manmade global warming and watch how quickly they turn hostile.

Whether you believe in it or not (I happen to believe we are at least mostly responsible for it, yes), there is a lack of dialogue being had in the scientific community.

All I can think is if we had this same climate a couple decades ago then Einstein's opinion on quantum physics being wrong would have been taken as gospel and those that questioned it would have been ousted and rejected and we would be way behind where we are now.

>>8476393
Most of my professors are really skeptical of any research in their field and get triggered when you use the word 'prove' even in a colloquial sense. Maybe it depends on the field though. They are geneticists.