Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Yep, all the pathways are conjecture or hypothetical at this stage because we aint sure of that exact methodology, nor do we have the convincing evidence, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the theory/process/model of Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life emerged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Approach" and "answer" are not synonyms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why should I find it impeccable? What are you saying?
Let me again get down to the nitty gritty exchemist...whether you want to call Abiogenesis a process, model or theory, do you dispute the fact that it is the only scientific answer?
If no, then great! We agree, both this old bastard and an exchemist!! good stuff!
If you do dispute it, then give me another answer to how life emerged...a scientific answer that is!
I'm waiting.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Theory then...or more correctly, a Postulate. Even a process to make you happy. It certainly does not affect the fact that it is the only scientific answer.

 

Neither is baseless pedant.

 

Whether you want to call Abiogenesis a process, model or theory, or Postulate or fact [take your pick] do you dispute the fact that it is the only scientific answer?
If no, then great! We agree, both this old bastard and an exchemist!! good stuff! We are in agreement.
If you do dispute it, then give me another answer to how life emerged...a scientific answer that is!
I'm waiting.

 

?? No. Panspermia is a perfectly valid option.

 

Agreed....I was though talking of universal Abiogenesis. I find Abiogenesis being implemented elsewhere and via Panspermia also on Earth as a very valid proposition, although I have had arguments put against that, based on the fact that it is really superfluous as the conditions and requirements for Abiogenesis process to start on Earth were all there.

 

That's a simplistic way of drawing a very subtle distinction. But we can argue that another time.

A scientific answer would be an answer. It would be informative. It would explain step by step in exquisite detail just how life originated. Just renaming 'the origin of life' with a new word 'abiogenesis' doesn't really tell us anything.

It wasn't. But it does tell us something about your motivations for starting this thread, doesn't it?

Is this thread really about the science of life's origins, or is it about battling creationist religious ideas?

Let's both agree for the sake of argument that from what we know now, it appears that there was a time (whether on Earth or in the wider universe) when there wasn't any life and now there is. What can we conclude from that? There seem to be several alternatives:

1. Life appeared through some natural process, making use only of principles inherent in inorganic matter. (That's the one I personally accept as a working hypothesis.)

2. Life appeared through some non-natural process, as the result of some intervention from outside the universe of inorganic matter. (I find that one to be even less informative than renaming 'orgin of life' 'abiogenesis', unless we gain some knowledge of these non-natural intervenors and their mode of action. This is effectively the creationist alternative).

3. Life appeared in some way that's unknown and unsuspected by us at this point. (That's uninformative by its nature.)

My point is that all three seem to be consistent with your "at one time the universe was devoid of life... in fact it was devoid of elements and even devoid of atomic nucleaus. Then there was life!!!"

I gather from your "spaghetti monster" remark that it's #2 that you oppose. Well, perhaps the biggest reason to exclude it seems to be that it brazenly violates science's methodological naturalism. And that's a philosophical matter, not a scientific mistake.

I agree with that. But it seems to contradict you. So let's parse it step by step.

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life"

'Abiogenesis' is a synonym for 'origin of life'. (I wouldn't say that 'origin of life' is an informal usage.)

"is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

Hypothetical process because we don't know what the process was. We are just assuming that something must have happened. The idea that it's a "natural process" is problematic as well. That's a philosophical assertion just kind of inserted in there. Certainly science operates on the assumption that whatever it seeks to explain has a natural explanation, but it doesn't actually know that in every case. It assumes it as a methodological premise and as a heuristic principle.

"While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes."

That's just listing things that are observed with living cells and identifying them as items that need explanation if we are going to account for the initial origin of cells. We don't really possess most of those explanations yet, even though there are no end of speculations and hypotheses about various aspects of it.

"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."

No problem with that. Scientists assume that life must have had an initial origin but don't yet know how it happened. But they happily speculate and throw out hypotheses.

But if we can't explain how life originated, it isn't an answer. It's a name given to a research program that's seeking answers.

Merely noting that life seems to have has an as-yet unknown origin and renaming that unknown origin 'abiogenesis' isn't "the only scientific answer for the existence of life".

That's your mistake right there.

At best 'abiogenesis' names a research program in which biologists and chemists propose hypotheses about how it might have happened, try to determine in the laboratory how plausible those mechanisms are, try to determine whether they are consistent with what is known about the early Earth, and seek evidence that it might have actually happened that way.

 

Subtle and shown to be correct in this day and age. http://theconversation.com/philosophy-under-attack-lawrence-krauss-and-the-new-denialism-12181

You mean like DM explains fully, step by step, in exquisite detail what it is made from and why it only ever interacts gravitationally? I won't mention DE
Abiogenesis tells us that chemical reactions in the Early Earth was responsible for life...or life arose from non life.

Wrong again, on your first guess...I'm also discussing it over at SFN under the title of "comet impacts jump starting life on Earth" and other then some early trolling by dmoe on which he was reprimanded for, the discussion is proceeding beautifully, with agreement by a experienced and professional Philosopher. Other then for the trolling, no objection at all to the fact that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for the emergence of life. Yes to your second question, with the remark that obviously such a touchy subject that stipulates that Creationists and IDers are mythical nonsense, will certainly raise the ire of those of that ilk. That's none of my concern. This and SFN are science forums.

Let's first highlight again your obvious false assumptions with "for the sake of argument" We know with 100% certainty that at one time there was no life. There were,n't even atoms, or elements for that matter. We also know with certainty that the elements that make up life are found throughout the universe, or as a renowned scientist said [Carl Sagan??] We were all born in the belly of stars...we are nothing but star stuff.
The methodology of that assembly of star stuff is not 100% known...but that in know way invalidates the process/theory/model/Postulate or whatever term you want to apply, of Abiogenesis, and what that means. Panspermia is a possibilty, but talking of "outside the universe" is simply speculative.

Life from nonlife is all that is scientifically viable. The list of methodologies by which and the path that life first emerged has also been listed in an article in this thread, and which at this time I'm too lazy to retrieve. I am not arguing about any particular scientific pathway, just that Abiogenesis took place.

Gather whatever and however you like. This is a science forum and creationism and IDer nonsense is unscientific to put it as kindly as possible, as is all supernatural and paranormal myths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.

No it does not, and your lengthy philosophical ramblings in no way disputes what this thread is about and the points I am making.

No that's simply you tinkering philosophical fashion with words and erroneous definitions to support this weird stance you seem to be presenting.
Once there was no life, then their was. We can be certain the only scientific answer is via a process we call Abiogenesis, despite not knowing the exact path of that process. To claim otherwise, while waxing lyrical in philosophical fashion, is your mistake.

What were you saying about contradiction??? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
There is no best or worst Yazata. Abiogenesis is scientifically defined as life emerging from non life, and is the only scientific answer to that question.

 

You did not read the last part of my #2 then? Of course true and equally true paddoboy is too pig-headed to ever concede.

 

Young-Earthers aside, the better critiques of naturalistic abiogenesis are far different to how you caricaturize there. The diferences qualitatively and quantitatively between transmuation to gold (something particle accelerators can accomplish messily by brute force smashing smaller nuclei together), and any attempt to explain life from non-life are vast in the extreme. Given your position, please summarize precisely where James Tour (there are others of course) presents a single faulty argument re multiple roadblocks to natural abiogenesis, in this excerpt from a longer presentation:

Note the 2nd last bullet point in first list exactly characterizes the squawking parrot here who cannot do any science but thinks continually shouting 'science' 'science' science' somehow confers on him a 'scientific' credential.

As for criticism JT is 'my hero', no, he just has the expertise and flare to cogently expose the continual lying especially by omission, perpetrated by mainstream researchers and sympathetic journalist popularizers. I'm aghast at his annoying claim to 'not understand or embrace ID arguments', while absolutely destroying the materialist position.
Further, consider his Messianic Jew faith a prime example of compartmentalized thinking. Not that many others anywhere ever really escape that dilemma fully.

My position is that an objective analysis of the issues preventing any natural origin of life necessarily implies a higher intelligence - God will do as label - that logically could not have a material biological origin. I see a limited parallel between 19th century thinking that would have ridicules as absurd any notion of non-locality that since Bell 1964, we have been forced to accept as real by way of experiments. Despite nobody having a clue how such a mysterious linkage is possible. It just is! What actually is should guide one's philosophy, not trying to shoehorn ever changing 'facts' to fit a rigid philosophy.

 

I actually leave such pig headed arrogance to the King of pig headed arrogance on this forum q-reeus, and you will recognise that person if you look into a mirror...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1

Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter:

Abstract:
Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?


concluding remarks:

Darwin's contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man's view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result - despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal - the relentless striving toward the unification of science - requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged.

In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a process than a thing. In that sense Whitehead's process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014 compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life's dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms - small segments of that giant network - can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one.

A closing remark concerning life's complexity. Life is complex - that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67, 68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule - the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space - is yet another example of that fundamental idea.

A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind - dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic - is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth's land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable - there is a continual transformation of 'regular' matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more 'stable' form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper.

 

Aww, c'mon matey, let's play nice! You see I'm not crritical of your beliefs in any mythical deity or imagined situation. I'm just critical of your nonsensical conspiracy stance you often take, and your fabricated false GR nonsense, under the guise of course, that to show science is wrong on such a well supported and well evidenced aspect of science, would be to some how raise the level and credibility of your IDer nonsense.
There are facts q-reeus, and there are well thought out theories: Abiogenesis is one of those facts and GR of course remains at the top rung and will continue to do so for a while yet. Although there may be some promise on the horizon with regards to string....who knows? I'll accept that which is supported observationaly and experimentally the most. Just as is the concept of Abiogenesis. That's something you will just have to accept, or continue to grovel in your myths and such.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: It appears you have river in support. Congratulations!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"nudge,nudge,wink,wink."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

BS. You know I could quote many posts of yours where you RAGE against my so-called 'spaghetti monster god ID agenda nonsense' etc etc. Mind reminding us again how happy you are to accommodate your 'spaghetti monster' believing missus and fellow believers in their worship/praise sessions in your premises! Hypocrite.

If only you could compose a coherent passage maybe I could critique in detail. But even then not worth arguing with a parrot.

Single highlighted word - wrong. And exposed multiple times here by others with no 'spaghetti monster' beliefs. Try and learn. A futile request of course. And I note your continued injection of off-topic bating issues. I have briefly dealt with it earlier. Why no-one in admin picks you up on that is, well, actually not a surprise to me.

And? Instead of continually flooding the thread with full or nearly full reproductions of articles that look good to you by way of their flashy titles, attempt what I asked globali to do in 1st para in #53. Go on, give it your very best stab. Rest up on your mindless cut & paste campaign for a while - and 'expose' James Tour as a 'fraud'! It's easy to predict your response. Deflection. Because you will not be able to find any flaw in Tour's well set out critique of what you blindly trust in. Prove me wrong.

 

Oh, please! q-reeus, cease the childish whinging which you have been at since I started this thread. And please note, YOU do not tell me what to do, You do not tell the mods what to do..you are only in control of yourself, and even that you fail miserably at times.
My many papers and links verifying the fact of Abiogenesis being the only scientific theory for the emergence of life, most certainly trumps a couple of comments by philosophers I have offended on this forum, and of course your hero JT and his ramblings. No, I have not watched the video as yet, and no I'm not going to try and invalidate or find any flaw in his claims or hypothesis, because they already have been invalidated many many times. If that was not the case, then Abiogenesis would not be the only certain scientific theory for life's emergence, and Abiogenesis would be in trouble. He doesn't and it isn't.
Some more papers to come chummy, which will even further show you are wrong and your mythical beliefs as just that.

 

Deflection then. As accurately and easily predicted.
Let's see if anyone else here, some with actual knowledge of chemistry and/or biology, will take up that 1st para in #53 challenge. I think not. Antagonistic but vague generalizations, or quotes from critics who provide no more than that, won't count.

 

Pretentious nonsense q-reeus, and just your opinions and you have been wrong about them so many times in the past, havn't you?
Once there was no life...then there was. What do you suggest happened? [Please scientifically supported concepts only.
That's all you need to do, give an answer and stick to the science and avoid the errors you have made in the past, including threads that have been shifted out of the science sections.

In the meantime, this may enlighten and help you......
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305

Origins of building blocks of life: A review:

Highlights:
This review includes the whole stage of chemical evolution of life.

The availabilities of P and N on the early Earth were discussed.

Geochemical and geological settings favorable for the life's origin are proposed.


Abstract
How and where did life on Earth originate? To date, various environments have been proposed as plausible sites for the origin of life. However, discussions have focused on a limited stage of chemical evolution, or emergence of a specific chemical function of proto-biological systems. It remains unclear what geochemical situations could drive all the stages of chemical evolution, ranging from condensation of simple inorganic compounds to the emergence of self-sustaining systems that were evolvable into modern biological ones. In this review, we summarize reported experimental and theoretical findings for prebiotic chemistry relevant to this topic, including availability of biologically essential elements (N and P) on the Hadean Earth, abiotic synthesis of life's building blocks (amino acids, peptides, ribose, nucleobases, fatty acids, nucleotides, and oligonucleotides), their polymerizations to bio-macromolecules (peptides and oligonucleotides), and emergence of biological functions of replication and compartmentalization. It is indicated from the overviews that completion of the chemical evolution requires at least eight reaction conditions of (1) reductive gas phase, (2) alkaline pH, (3) freezing temperature, (4) fresh water, (5) dry/dry-wet cycle, (6) coupling with high energy reactions, (7) heating-cooling cycle in water, and (8) extraterrestrial input of life's building blocks and reactive nutrients. The necessity of these mutually exclusive conditions clearly indicates that life's origin did not occur at a single setting; rather, it required highly diverse and dynamic environments that were connected with each other to allow intra-transportation of reaction products and reactants through fluid circulation. Future experimental research that mimics the conditions of the proposed model are expected to provide further constraints on the processes and mechanisms for the origin of life.

Graphical abstract

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

6. Concluding remarks
Now we could figure out the geochemical inventory necessary to drive all stages of chemical evolution, ranging from nutrient acquisition, organic synthesis, accumulation, polymerization, and their interactions. What geological processes could offer environments that meet all of the requirements? Were such processes occurring on the Hadean Earth? If so, are the occurrences ubiquitous phenomena or rare on other planets in the universe? These questions need to be tackled by future theoretical and experimental investigations.