Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

What is going on is a deterministic chemical reaction, driven by Brownian motion. The pieces don't have to be smart, just fit together in a certain way. It's just like atoms fitting together in certain ways determine it's properties. Life is just a complex form of matter, a chemical reaction, a machine made of molecules that being complex enough, showed emergent properties like intelligence and game shows. The brilliant thing about evolution is that it explains the basic principles about how arrangements of molecules, able to merely replicate and metabolize energy, will grow more complex with time, since replication can't be perfect, and there is always the chance that an incorrectly translated genetic code might be better, which means only more prolific. It's a chain reaction that requires rare initial conditions, but the initial conditions were here, and the number of planets is very large, so it was bound to happen sooner or later. Any life form that arose in the universe would perceive it as a rare and unbelievable event.That is the source of your (the doubter's) incredulity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why only life on Earth, the only Blue Planet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it's almost certain there are other planets with life on them, or asteroids, or nebula, you never know.



Here is a fantasic summary of abiogenesis from a Russian scientist who was a pioneer on the subject.

1. There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter.

2. Taking into account the recent discovery of methane in the atmospheres of Jupiter and the other giant planets, Oparin postulated that the infant Earth had possessed a strongly reducing atmosphere, containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. In his opinion, these were the raw materials for the evolution of life.

3. At first there were the simple solutions of organic substances, the behavior of which was governed by the properties of their component atoms and the arrangement of those atoms in the molecular structure. But gradually, as the result of growth and increased complexity of the molecules, new properties have come into being and a new colloidal-chemical order was imposed on the more simple organic chemical relations. These newer properties were determined by the spatial arrangement and mutual relationship of the molecules.

4. In this process biological orderliness already comes into prominence. Competition, speed of growth, struggle for existence and, finally, natural selection determined such a form of material organization which is characteristic of living things of the present time.

Aleksandr Oparin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LMAO!!!

Hey, I know I said I wouldn't subject myself to any more of your rantings on evolution, and I'm not here for that. I want to discuss astronomy with you. How is it that you know the colors of all the planets in the universe? If you have a telescope that good, you might be able to make a good chunk of money -- I'm sure NASA and many universities and observatories would like to get in on that action.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dude, you are a never-ending source of amusement. I can almost see why people around here tolerate you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well, since you put it that way then yes, they did teach abiogenesis in my high school.
they also spoke of amino amino acids being formed from the elements.
but here's the clincher, they never said it was a different concept from evolution nor did they call it abiogenesis. in short the students were led to believe they were looking at evolution in action and that evolution explains how we got here.

i can't wait for this evidence.

really?
you have proof of this?

no, wrong.
cells dude. cells are the catalysts of which you speak.

wrong on both counts.
evolution is not abiogegnesis, and, i don't care if there is 1,000 billion ways life could have emerged they are all theories until they are proven.
to date not one theory on abiogenesis has been proven to be true.

 

Well, the alternative is lava beings on a waterless planet of molten rock, that left no trace in the chemistry of the their surroundings and disappeared completely before any extant rock was formed.

I speak of the reactions inside the cells - and some outside, of course. Cells are not catalysts. But so what? What makes me wrong? Are you denying that living beings are made of the same elements as non-living things ? That living things grow through "spontaneous" chemical invorporation of those elements into new and emergent complexes and structures?

Again the mysterious "wrong" followed by irrelevancy in the place of explanation or argument.

btw:you give the possibilities too much credit. They are not "theories" yet, since the evidence is so scant and nothing is solid. It will take a lot of work to establish a real theory of the actual events of abiogenesis on Earth. The frontrunner now is Darwinian Evolution of various inorganic structures and their carbon associations, in an anaerobic but aqueous environment.

 

okay, let me spell this out for you.
scientists claim that they know how the earth was formed.
they also claim to know what conditions existed on the primordial earth.
given the above science tries to "create life" by performing the miller urey experiment in the mid 50s this experiment recreated the conditions that was thought to exist. the experiment failed to produce life.

it's been 50 years since the first attempt and they still haven't figured it out.

 

They didn't attempt the recreate life. They attempted to create the building blocks that could have made life possible.

 

Not in detail, they don't.

Did produce amino acids,though. In just a couple months. Which was pretty exciting, until someone pointed out: they didn't have the circumstances quite right, and the planet was just as big and varied then as now.

When you say "conditions on Earth" you have to specify: where on Earth? Poles ? Rift vents? clay flats? The huge chemical deposits of the lifeless, anaerobic, volcanic planet?

Since then, amino acids have been found in meteorites and space dust. So the Miller-Urey experiments apparently don't provide much firm guidance for further exploration. We don't even know if the first amino acids of living beings formed on earth.

LOL. A whole 50 years ! Almost a quarter of the time professionals with lots of money have spent trying to breed a black tulip.

The archaea, a third and apparently older fundamental branch of all life on earth, the beings probably most informative about the origins of life as we know it, were not even discovered until just a few years ago. It's going to be a long time before anyone knows how to even begin duplicating abiogenesis.

 

not according to this:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

the simple facts are that science HAS NO IDEA how life came to be on this planet.

the fact that science doesn't know isn't conveyed to our students.

 

read your own link. It says exactly what I said.

 

This is simply untrue. We have several ideas, some of which are in competition with each other, others of which are mutually supportive.
Some examples:
We know that we require a fairly complex pre-biotic chemistry. The Miller-Urey experiment you cited, and many subsequent experiments of similar type have produced a wide range of organic molecules. We have detected over one hundred types of organic molecules in interstellar space. We have found abundant organic material in meteorites. There appears to be no shortage of sources for the basic pre biotic chemicals.

When we subject amino acids to extreme conditions - uv radiation (which would have been prevalent on the primitive Earth), or massive impact (as would be associated with cometary impact) - we find that they polymerise, forming polypetides, the precursors of proteins.

We are aware of many autocatylitic cycles in which the presence of one molecular 'species' catalyses the production of others, which in turn catalyse the production of the original one. This leads to a very 'directed' formation of specific complex molecules. (Thus dispensing with the creationist nonsense that particular proteins couldn't develop because the odds against their random formation is too great. It ain't random.)

Lipid coated water droplets containing varied chemicals and of a size comparable with cells will readily form from a pre-biotic soup. These will likely contain several autocatalytic cycles.

A host of similar observations and concepts take us to the point where we can see many of the components of this complex thing we call life emerging from increasingly complex chemical interactions. I've never understood why believers in God fail to see the wonder and majesty in that.

 

i'm not going to pretend to know what miller was thinking when he performed his experiment.
but reading the link leads me to believe that he wasn't sure what he would find or he indeed tried to create life from the conditions thought to have existed.

okay, i'll rephrase. science has no WORKABLE ideas how life came to be on this planet.

 

spidergoat,

You're still stuck in your archaic thinking. Aleksandr Oparin's latest work dates back to at most the 1940s before the genetic revolution in 1953....during that time it made immense sense to say that spontaneous chemicals started life because they didn't know about the genetic information, Darwin and others thought the simplest forms of life were just a bunch of chemicals as this guy states also....the only reason why I and others believe there is design is because the genetic information within cells...this genetic information contains all the instructions for the cell...the machines in the cell read this information, interpret it, translate it, and carry out instructions based on this...its very very clear to anyone that there is design (regardless of if its ID or not)....

So bacteria having things very similar to computer inverters isn't design to you all? I guess computers were also natural formations...

 

You are doing all the assuming.

from your link which you used to prove your unattainable position.

Note how nothing is said about trying to create life. Yet you assume it.

I'm sure nobody can know what he was thinking, but apparently YOU can.

And strangely enough it seems to contradict your own sources.

 

okay. fine. it still doesn't change the fact that life hasn't been created from the elements does it?

 

How come you are alive then?

 

i came from living matter spurious.

although i couldn't find anything on the purpose of the miller urey experiment i did find this:
As Shapiro's subtitle would indicate, he is a ruthlessly honest "Skeptic," the opposite of a "Creationist." His purpose is to demonstrate that much of what has been accepted as "the explanation" of how life first began simply does not hold up to any level of scrutiny. His position is that, rather than foist what he calls "this mythology" on the academic world and the general public, responsible scientists should make the honest declaration that we don't have any idea how life could possibly have come into existence from the inorganic world.
http://www.2001principle.net/links.evolution.htm

 

At least the general public knows that scientists have not come close to causing life to form from non-life, despite rosy picture painting by the faithful of abiogenesis.

 

Shit, Leopold, he uses the thoroughly discredited calculations by Fred Hoyle to demonstrate and justify his position. There are skeptics and there are sceptics.