Is Abiogenesis Scientific?

Whereas evolution is undeniably scientific fact, it seems that abiogenesis rests on far shakier grounds. That is to say, whereas we have some reason to suspect that the hypothesis is true (the amino acid experiment) we have little else to demonstrate it's truth. No lifeform has ever been observed to develop out of experiment "primordial soups", no complex molecules aside from the aforementioned amino acids (and not even all of them) have been shown to develop in laboratory conditions mimicing early Earth, there is no fossil or other data to show what the earliest lifeforms looked like, et cetera, et cetera...

In essence, whereas it would explain many things, it also seems to have essentially no solid proof, and only the most shakiest of circumstantial evidence.

Or perhaps I am not taking into consideration some new evidence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are you comparing...the time and space humans have and time and space planet Earth had?

Earth is a greater laboratory that exists, existed, and will exist for a long time. And that is why humans have not been able to start abiogenesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As we've observed with galaxies and stars in their various stages, so too should we be able to observe various stages of life... that is, once we're able to travel to a variety of other planetary systems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that is if we are not too late. Perhaps life exists only in a thin band portion of time-space expansion after the big bang occured.

 

Around most stars exists an Habitable Zone, in which life could sprout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone

 

The theory, as commonly accepted, in textbooks, etc, has life beginning in three steps:
1 Non-biological molecules synthesize organic molecules. They've been making amino acids in such ways for decades now.
2 Assembling the molecules into polymers. This has also been observed, both in the lab and in nature.
3 Assembling the polymers into self replicating organisms. This has yet to be observed.

Two thirds doesn't seem that bad, does it?

 

Roman:

Not all, nor apparently the ones which appear in our bodies.

Can you give me some sources on this? And what sort of polymers?

A pretty big problem at the moment, no?

Q:

Depending on how these lifeforms are constituted, it may be invalid for us to claim the same processes worked for us.

 

Regarding #2, it seems I was misled by my professor. RNA, when given a mineral substrate (like clay), will attach itself to it and stay protected from RNA damaging molecules. It can also replicate and undergo reverse transcription as efficiently as free floating RNA. This was experimentally verified by Franchi and Gallori.

However, the development of the enzyme that reverse transcribed the RNA, and the synthesis of the RNA itself, weren't cause by any abiogenesis.

Here's a link to a blog that gave me the key words to search around wikipedia with: http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/03/on-origin-of-life_09.html
I also looked through my textbook ( Freeman, Biological Science, Second Edition), and found basically the same thing, though more watered down. Basically an early RNA world that arouse through amino acids and polymers randomly bumping into eachother Conjecture supported in a few places by experiments.

 

Roman:

So basically, a bit more of circumstantial evidence, but no solid foundations for basing evolutionary theory on abiogenesis yet, yes?

 

nothing has solid foundation.

abiogenesis is the most accepted way of how life came to being.

 

thank you sir. I totally agree with you.

 

DNA and RNA. They are the blueprint for life. They are made of organic chemicals of a nature common in the early Earth, which was thought to contain an ocean. Since there was no life to consume the organic molecules, they must have attained higher and higher concentrations. Such organic molecules are found even in space. Since it is also known that life arose in the ocean, one may assume that this was the womb that cultivated the first life.

This theory is quite compelling, but the proof is still elusive; it's one of the most interesting questions in biology.

 

perhaps...ocean pressure helped facilitate the creation of life. hmmmm!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

!!!that might explain the amount of different species down there!!! im a genious.

 

Yes, the pressures created conditions for chemical reactions that could happen nowhere else, and filled the water with a rich stew of chemistry.

 

well the chemistry could have been from the rocks...on asteroids...

 

There was a meteorite discovered in Australia that had 18 different amino acids in it.

 

is that the martian ALH....something meteor? from Mars?

 

Pretty much. But right now, it's the best explanation we can logically come up with.

 

Wasn't that in Antarctica? Or is this another one?