does abiogenesis exist?

[matthew809]

The question of whether evolution exists has been shown to be true. It's been directly shown that creatures do change over time. Better questions would be:
What causes an evolution in each case?
What should really be classified as an evolution?

Is an evolution caused by a DNA update from a designer?
Is an evolution caused by DNA flexibility pre-programmed in?
Is an evolution caused by an astronomically improbable, chance mutation which happens every once in a while?

If a creature seems to change significantly over time, what do we attribute it to? Mutation? Preprogramming? Reprogramming? The only way we could tell would be to intimately understand the language of DNA- which we are nowhere even close to doing.

The biomass of this earth came into existence one of two ways- intelligently designed, or naturally. The behavior of this biomass after creation is deceiving; it can not be understood until we understand the language of DNA. So lets not ask if evolution exists.

Does abiogenesis exist?

[spidergoat]

Abiogenesis no longer exists as a phenomenon on this planet.

[lightgigantic]

Abiogenesis no longer exists as a phenomenon on this planet.

why not?

[spidergoat]

Because wherever there would be organic matter, there now exists something that would eat it.

[lightgigantic]

Because wherever there would be organic matter, there now exists something that would eat it.

mosquitoes suffer the same problem

[Randwolf]

“Originally Posted by spidergoat
Abiogenesis no longer exists as a phenomenon on this planet."

why not?

Because wherever there would be organic matter, there now exists something that would eat it.

Maybe so, but might not differences in the primordial environment versus today's world contribute as much or more to the apparent lack of currently occurring abiogenisis?


Note to OP: you probably know this already, but for any that may read this thread and still be confused on the issue, abiogenisis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolution.

[lightgigantic]

Maybe so, but might not differences in the primordial environment versus today's world contribute as much or more to the apparent lack of currently occurring abiogenisis?

what was present or what is now lacking?

Note to OP: you probably know this already, but for any that may read this thread and still be confused on the issue, abiogenisis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolution.

You mean that ideas of evolution can exist independently from notions that all consciousness can be reduced to reductionist paradigms?

[spidergoat]

I wasn't going to sort out all of the OP's misconceptions (or lightgigantic's).

Anyway, when I say that life already exists that would eat any precursors to life, that implies that the environment now is very different. Without all the bacteria and other life that now eats organic matter, the early oceans would have filled up with organic slime. There was no oxygen either.

[Sarkus]

Mosquitoes are a sizeable complex life-form and thus are flawed as a comparison with the first/new life created through abiogenesis.

If Abiogenesis is still a phenomena occurring on Earth, there are several explainations for it not being observed:
1. The "new" life is indistinguishable from existing life and thus not identified as "new";
2. The "new" life is unable to compete for resources with the prevalent existing life - and thus dies off almost as quick as it arises;
3. It is highly localised in each event of occurrence, and the "new" life has not been discovered;

And then there is always the option that it simply no longer happens due to current conditions not being conducive.

It is possible that "life" began several times in the early stages of the earth, but that only one version was successful with the changing conditions of the earth, or that many competing systems of life combined to create what we now understand as "life".

It's not something we are ever likely to know.

[lightgigantic]

Mosquitoes are a sizeable complex life-form and thus are flawed as a comparison with the first/new life created through abiogenesis.

If Abiogenesis is still a phenomena occurring on Earth, there are several explainations for it not being observed:
1. The "new" life is indistinguishable from existing life and thus not identified as "new";

huh?
I'm pretty sure that if life was discovered emerging through abiogenesis it would be quite easily distinguished

2. The "new" life is unable to compete for resources with the prevalent existing life - and thus dies off almost as quick as it arises;
3. It is highly localised in each event of occurrence, and the "new" life has not been discovered;

Or alternatively we can call upon Occam's razor and say it doesn't exist

It's not something we are ever likely to know.

which then begs the q, how do you know?

[Randwolf]

what was present or what is now lacking?

Well, let's see. Spidergoat mentioned a couple, but we also have differing pH, cosmic radiation, temperature, oxygen, carbon dioxide, volcanic activity, salinity, electromagnet levels, etc., etc. Perhaps differing length of days, different polar alignment, my... The list could get quite long.

You mean that ideas of evolution can exist independently from notions that all consciousness can be reduced to reductionist paradigms?

"Consciousness" is irrelevant, unless you consider bacteria, prions and viruses to be conscious. I do love the "reduced to reductionist paradigms" phrase though - quite catchy...


Anyway, Ill try to clarify the difference for you. Abiogenesis refers to spontaneous generation of life where none was before, evolution applies after life is in place. There - only four words with more than two syllables. Does that help?

[spidergoat]

mosquitoes suffer the same problem

Mosquitoes aren't free organic molecules that could rot. They have functioning immune systems, and they grow out of eggs that are protected from the outside. They are relatively robust. Even the simple bacteria has complex defense mechanisms.

[Sarkus]

huh?
I'm pretty sure that if life was discovered emerging through abiogenesis it would be quite easily distinguished

Why? If new life formed that was also a DNA-based life (that we have in abundance), why would this be "easily distinguished".

Or alternatively we can call upon Occam's razor and say it doesn't exist

Yep - but given that there is evidence it happened once, it's more a question of why it is no longer observed.

which then begs the q, how do you know?

I don't. Never claimed to. You do know the difference between providing possibilities and claiming to know?

[spidergoat]

Life today emerges from life. But abiogenesis implies life coming from dead matter. That dead matter could only exist in an environment different than today, where everything dead starts to disintegrate almost immediately. Before oxygen and bacteria, this dead matter would have accumulated.

[lightgigantic]

Why? If new life formed that was also a DNA-based life (that we have in abundance), why would this be "easily distinguished".

when they investigated where it comes from of course

Yep - but given that there is evidence it happened once, it's more a question of why it is no longer observed.

pardon me?
evidence?
no longer observed?

... when did they stop observing it?

I don't. Never claimed to.

yes you did

you just claimed to know that we are never likely to know? Yes?

[lightgigantic]

Well, let's see. Spidergoat mentioned a couple, but we also have differing pH, cosmic radiation, temperature, oxygen, carbon dioxide, volcanic activity, salinity, electromagnet levels, etc., etc. Perhaps differing length of days, different polar alignment, my... The list could get quite long.

So is your point that we are incapable of providing all these things in a single contained environment to observe abiogenesis take place?

"Consciousness" is irrelevant, unless you consider bacteria, prions and viruses to be conscious. I do love the "reduced to reductionist paradigms" phrase though - quite catchy...

If it can be indicated in an either dead or living state, why wouldn't it have consciousness

Anyway, Ill try to clarify the difference for you. Abiogenesis refers to spontaneous generation of life where none was before, evolution applies after life is in place. There - only four words with more than two syllables. Does that help?

Thanks for the clarification
so to get back to my original question

Can ideas of evolution exist independently from notions that all life owes it origins to the spontaneous generation from an absence of life (or more specifically, the bits and pieces reduced to the language of the reductionist paradigm)?

[lightgigantic]

Life today emerges from life. But abiogenesis implies life coming from dead matter. That dead matter could only exist in an environment different than today, where everything dead starts to disintegrate almost immediately. Before oxygen and bacteria, this dead matter would have accumulated.

quick question

in the absence of life (like in the pre-abiogenesis world) how do you define dead matter? And how would that dead matter be radically different from the dead matter of today? (IOW in what ways has life dramatically redefined our understanding of dead matter)

[spidergoat]

Amino acids mostly, which could form RNA, DNA or proteins, which could then be the basis for a hereditary mechanism. I guess I meant to say organic, but I'm not sure how chemists define the term in the absence of organisms.

[lightgigantic]

Amino acids mostly, which could form RNA, DNA or proteins, which could then be the basis for a hereditary mechanism.

hereditary mechanism in what?

I guess I meant to say organic, but I'm not sure how chemists define the term in the absence of organisms.

so what does organic matter look like in the absence of organisms?

[Randwolf]

So is your point that we are incapable of providing all these things in a single contained environment to observe abiogenesis take place?

Not at all.
We're hard at work doing just that, here is an interesting post from Wired Science:Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory. There are also several citations and "See also's" at the bottom for further research. It's only a matter of time, IMHO.

If it can be indicated in an either dead or living state, why wouldn't it have consciousness

This is a matter of semantics. From Wiki:

Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience "feeling", wakefulness, the understanding of the concept "self", or the executive control system of the mind...

To me, the term generally implies a higher degree of organization than that found in unicellular organisms. Perhaps you are of the opinion that "life" equates with "consciousness", however, I do not believe that this is the common interpretation.

Thanks for the clarification
so to get back to my original question

You're welcome, and certainly.

Can ideas of evolution exist independently from notions that all life owes it origins to the spontaneous generation from an absence of life (or more specifically, the bits and pieces reduced to the language of the reductionist paradigm)?

I see no reason why not. Regardless of how life arose on Earth (an alternate theory to abiogenisis being galactic diaspora, for example) it is still subject to evolution. Even if one delves into the superstitious (God, Alien involvement, etc), we still have overwhelming evidence of evolution. I'm not sure, but I believe even the Catholic church is beginning to soften its position on the matter.