Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. globali Registered Senior Member

    There must be a natural reason for the origin of life.

    However, i have to admit that some creationists have a deeper understanding of biological processes and how complex life actually is, compared to some people who claim that: "oh formation of life, simple. Chemistry after very long periods of time will evolve into more complex systems that will have the ability to self-replicate and self-organize. Simple as that. Piece of cake. Just give it time and nature will perform countless experiments". This is hyped populist mumbo jumbo promoted sometimes by legit scientists.

    Oparin and Haldane first proposed that biological building blocks can be created from simpler compounds under conditions present in the young earth. This was later proven by the famous Urey-Miller experiment. Oparin and Haldane also proposed that these chemical systems will become more complex with time and will slowly gain more life-like properties until they become life. This was disproven by subsequent experiments. Scientists also concluded that even if they give time to the system, nothing will likely change.

    I would suggest the following link which is very informative, and shows how the majority of real world scientists view the topic.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yes this point about philosophy appears to be at the root of Paddoboy's seemingly ineradicable ignorance about science.

    Perhaps because he rejects philosophy as having any relevance to science, he can't see that science starts from an axiomatic philosophical assumption, viz. methodological naturalism. This failure seems to result in him being unable to distinguish between the mere application of this axiomatic assumption and actual scientific evidence for a specific hypothesis.

    But I'm afraid I also find myself calling his motives into question. It seems to me this whole thread is more of his characteristic and unpleasant coat-trailing, in pursuance of another of his personal vendettas, something that has in the past caused me to lose all patience with him. (He even had the cheek at one point to insinuate that I might have secret creationist sympathies.)

    On reflection I wonder if there are signs of a lack of mental balance here: he seems unable to control his urge to be unpleasant. So perhaps it is not all his fault. Anyway, I've decided he is best on Ignore, so that I don't find myself annoyed by him any more.

    Q-reeus likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Bah, who needs organic chemistry when you've got God.

    But then, who exactly is God?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And I see you as a pompous arrogant git, much like your friend who you obviously are at pains to avoid upsetting! Despite the "goody two shoes" view you have of yourself.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  9. river

    Here is the thing pad , Abiogenesis I Agree with ( except the time and space origin , which makes no sense at all ) . I've mentioned this before . What threads I don't remember . But I have .

    Once the environment , our planet , is stable enough to allow Life to exist . The chemistry of Life begins .

    Life though is very much different from the periodic table .

    Life uses elements , when sunshine for energy is non-existent .

    Life has intelligence ; the periodic table doesn't .

    If you could just stop with your attitude of arrogance and insults and character attacks .

    We could then perhaps have an intelligent discussion on this or any thread .

    You are knowledgeable , your attitude towards others is the problem .
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And I also hate to labour the point James, but I see what you are claiming as just plain wrong. Abiogenesis and DM are collective terms to explain an observation with possibly many pathways, all coming under the one banner of Abiogenesis or DM. I could also mention DE as well.
    Of course the problem is not solved in both cases. I have said that many times.
    There are gaps in our knowledge in many areas of science including evolution which is as near certain as we can ever wish for. With the case/theory of DM, it could even be exotic particles which as yet we no nothing about, except for the fact that they only interact gravitationaly.
    "More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe".

    The unknown factors do not detract from the DM and DE theories
    I also like to rate scientific theories on a scale James, and as I have said many times, scientific theories do grown in certainty over time and as long as they continue to make correct predictions.Example on a scale of 1 to 10...evolution 9.99: Abiogenesis...9: SR and GR...8.5: DM...7: DE...7:
    You are splitting hairs James. the number of competing hypothesis all come under the banner of DM. As is the case with Abiogenesis, the many scientific "hypothetical" pathways, all come under the banner of Abiogenesis.
    Competing hypothesis that all come under the banner of the theory/model/process of Abiogenesis.
    Again, I'm not a scientist and do not know enough about the subject to go into the detail you require. What I do know is that life emerged from non life sometime in the distant past, and we call the process via which it emerged Abiogenesis.
    But you are expert enough and smart enough to understand that life did emerge from non life.
    All those papers logically agree that life emerged from non life and that we call that Abiogenesis.
    Same here. Reason being that the fact that both "scientists"in those two videos, are renowned practising, crusading religionists [if that is a word] and I am certainly not going to waste more then an hour my time watching what can reasonably be predicted to be in error and nonsense. And of course I do not have the expertise to debunk them.
    Which should give you more reasons to dismiss the rantings of a couple of religious preachers trying to convert the masses from the errors and evils of science, to the myths and stroy telling of religion.
    There thoughts on philosophy. And of course we all, you, me, q-reeus, exchemist have the need to argue from authority many times in our lifetime. The problem with your "arguing from authority" barb, is that if that authority is expert and professional in that field then it is desirable and necessary. The doubt comes in when people use the opinions of someone who is an expert in nanotechnology, to give a supposed expert view on Abiogenesis and evolution. See the difference?
    Agreed it is of no concern to you. The point I make is that the same debate has not evolved into the pedantic semantic nonsense that exchemist indulged in, nor the over the top philosophical musings by Yazata. Yet we havea qualified philosopher, three physicists, a GR expert, and a biologist.
    All agree with the points I have made here.
    Obviously life emerged from non life. Ignoring the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal, the only scientific "answer" we have is Abiogenesis. As is the case with many scientific theories, there are some gaps in our knowledge, even evolution. With Abiogenesis at this time there are many gaps, and we are ignorant of the exact pathway and methodology that took place for life to emerge and then evolve. The proposed, and accepted process of Abiogenesis covers all pathways and contingencies that Abiogenesis may have taken.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
    I'm not saying that. I'm saying that ruling out the unscientific mythical supernatural and paranormal nonsense, that then we only have one scientific answer left, that could encompass a variety of pathways and/or methodologies and those pathways all fall under the banner of Abiogenesis.

    Perhaps also you could have a word in exchemist ears re his insulting and cowardly and gutless remarks?
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  12. river

    Why do think that the , Cosmological Principle is correct ?
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    C'mon, who is naive here? Nothing will likely change?
    It is really more like "given enough time" there will be inevitable change.

    How much time and space given to the system would that be? Till the research grant runs out? Maybe a six month extension? How big is your laboratory? Watch the Hazen clip and you will hear a more conservative viewpoint in favor of life emerging from non-living dynamic patterns, in the enormous spaces and time frames of space.

    Watch a brainless slime mold ambulate. If you want to see an efficient natural computing machine, watch the slime mold, a barely living single celled organism, do its thing;

    Might actually be able to devise a few more experiments. At what point does a single cell become a living organism?

    The earth itself has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments during its lifetime. And you suggest that if we cannot do it in a laboratory, it cannot be done? That is naive......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The earth did it, all by itself. That is an undisputable fact (well perhaps some help from panspermia).
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    The smart guy in the sky who is also known as the Designer or to his acolyte Minions Mr ID

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I am disappointed in the following article: Abiogenesis does not need defending.

    Journal of Cosmology, 2009, Vol 1, pages 73-75
    Cosmology, 2009:

    In Defense of Abiogenesis:
    B. G. Sidharth, Ph.D., Director, International Institute For Applicable Mathematics & Information Sciences, B.M. Birla Science Centre, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad, India

    Dr. Joseph in an interesting, speculative article, details an elaborate theory explaining how life may have been transported to Earth (Joseph 2009). However, whereas many of his ideas are intriguing and closely follow the facts, a close scrutiny reveals that he also draws questionable conclusions about the viability of the theory of abiogenesis. Joseph points out that the origins of life are unknown, but then he asserts that the possibility life began in an organic soup is as farfetched as a self assembled computer being found on Mars; and this conclusion is debatable.

    His central contention is that life was brought to earth via comets or asteroids, a view propounded by, amongst others Chandra Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe 1993, 2000). He argues that microbes could be cold stored as spores and could be brought back to life millions of years hence. All this is within the realm of possibility, and it is true microbes can remain dormant as spores for millions of years (Vreeland et al. 2000). But in the absence of unambiguous proof his argument that spores from space are the source of life on Earth, cannot be treated as confirmed fact. Undoubtedly, as he notes debris produced by supernovae could have bombarded the Earth, as demonstrated by the presence of iron and Carbon 12 in ancient rocks that are over four billion years old. But from here to conclude that what was brought down to earth included living organisms is extremely speculative.

    For example let us take the case of the ALH 84001 meteorite believed to have been ejected from Mars (McKay et al. 1996). In 1996 this meteorite rose from obscurity and became the most talked about rock in the history of science because of claims that it had distinct traces of fossilized micro life (McKay et al., 1996). This claim has been contested due to indications of contamination and because similar shapes have been found on terrestrial samples as well (Anders 1996, Bell 1996, Becker et al 1997; Bradley et al. 1997; Shearer and Papike, 1996). Similar arguments can be put forward in the case of the other carbonaceous chondrites. To merely assert that, “… thus they are likely biological in origin” should really read “thus they could be of biological origin – or perhaps not."

    On the other hand, the wide spread belief that the first organisms were entirely cooked up in within an organic soup is also speculative and Dr. Joseph’s quote of Francis Crick (1981) is well taken in this context.

    A number of scientists have argued that the key ingredients for the creation of life on Earth originated in space, mixing with chemical composition of this planet and then becoming energized, organized, and alive (Menor-Salvan et al. 2009; Pizzarello 2007; Powner et al. 2009; Sidharth 2002, 2006). This dual origin for the development of life rests upon the belief that key ingredients like amino acids, but not yet fully formed life had reached the Earth from outer space and chemically interacted with other ingredients present on the Earth, to form life ( Johnson et al. 2008; Lascano and Bada, 2004; Menor-Salvan et al. 2009; Pizzarello 2007; Powner et al. 2009).

    For example, numerous studies have identified the existence of complex molecules in interstellar space, including the cool dust clouds of the Orion Nebula and in the constellation of Sagittarius (Belloche 2009). A number of independent scientists have confirmed the presence of methyl cyanide, water vapour, formaldehyde, methyl alcohol and even the potable ethyl alcohol (Zelic 2002).

    Joseph (2009) argues that these complex molecules are not the abiotic, or prebiotic, but may be the actual fingerprints, the residue of living organisms. Although this is within the realm of possibility, it is just as likely that since these molecules are related to life, they may have become combined to generate life.

    Over one hundred and twenty molecules including those which chemists designate as Methanol and Ethanol, from diatomic molecules through those containing thirteen atoms have been detected in the dark interstellar clouds which are opaque to light (Belloche 2009; Fraser 2002).. These appear to be nothing less than factories for building complex molecules. The mechanism could be that some of the simpler molecules are frozen in ice droplets which are bombarded by ultra violet radiation from very near by young stars, cosmic rays and ions, all these inducing the formation of very complex molecules by the process of breaking up of molecules and recombination. These speculations have been confirmed by laboratory simulations (Williams 2007).

    The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (of aerosol spray and global warming notoriety) under interstellar conditions convert to complex molecules, like alcohols, ethers and quinons (Jura 2005). These are ubiquitous in living organisms today, helping in various energy transfer processes like photosynthesis and the ability to absorb ultra violet radiation which is harmful to, for example amino acids. The universe exhibit traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are the most abundant class of carbons in the universe, which suggests the ingredients for creating life are also widespread. Although supportive of Joseph's thesis that life may exist on innumerable planets, and some of these life forms may have fallen to Earth, these findings also support theories of abiogenesis. If life formed on some other planet in an organic soup, then why could not life arise from an organic soup on Earth?

    This apart the space crafts Giotto and Vega which flew by Comet Halley glimpsed carbon rich molecules while space based observations revealed the presence of Ethane and Methane in Comets Hyakutake and Hale Bopp (Cottin 2001). Space dust reveals organic carbon. Interestingly some thirty tons of such carbon is brought down to the earth each day by the interstellar dust. Meteorites have shown nucleo basis, ketones, quinines, carboxylic acids, amines and amides (Folsome et al. 1973; Hayatsu et al. 1975; Stoks and Schwartz, 1979, Van der Velden and Schwartz, 1977). In fact as many as eight of the twenty amino acids involved in life processes have been identified besides some sixty others. This August, NASA announced that an analysis of data from its Stardust mission revealed, for the first time the presence of the amino acid glycine in an icy comet.

    Comets which inhabit the cool and dark regions of the solar system definitely contain the building blocks of life (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1993, 2000). But again, it would be a giant leap of logic, if we follow Dr. Joseph and say that they contain living organisms, though certainly this cannot be ruled out. There is increasing evidence through spectroscopic, space craft and even laboratory examinations of debris which fallen to Earth, which show that the frozen dirty ice balls known as comets, contain not just molecular compounds of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, but also even more complicated sugar related substances. Studies at NASA’s Ames Research Centre indicate the presence of polyhydroxilated compounds as well (Cooper 2001). Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences have confirmed the possibility of abiogenous synthesis of complex organic compounds (monomeric units of nucleic acids) on the surface of comets, asteroids, meteorites and space dust particles in outer space (Kuzicheva 2007).

    Joseph (2009) proposes life came to Earth from other planets. The question remains, how did life begin? If we accept life may have begun through abiogenic mechanisms on another planet, then the same processes may have occurred on this world, possibly via the combination of materials delivered from space with those already present on Earth. The presence of sugar related compounds and other complex molecules in meteoritic and cometary objects support the abiogenic theory of dual origins. Some of these molecules, possibly proteins or amino acids—but not yet living organisms—are very likely to have been transported to Earth, and further biochemical reactions would have taken place thereby giving life to non-life. Such a hybrid view for the origin of life is consistent with observations and experiments.

    Consider again, amino acids. The amino acids produced in the laboratory like the Urey-Miller type experiments show equal quantities of the left handed and right handed varieties, which is reasonable (Brooks 1985). However in life processes, the left handed molecules predominate over the right handed molecules. Interestingly in the amino acids found on meteorites (Cooper et al. 2001; Cronin et al. 1993), we have exactly this preponderance of left handed amino acid molecules! Joseph (2009) would argue this disproves the Miller experiments and favors the theory of panspermia. However, what it shows is that the ingredients for life could have been delivered to our planet from space.

  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    How can extra terrestrial molecules trigger off chemical reactions leading to the origin of life? Firstly complex molecules containing six or more carbon atoms are known to produce amino acids in warm acidic water; as many as fifteen carbon bonds have been created. These molecules form droplet-like capsules. Indeed such capsules, the precursors of cell walls were also exhibited by extracts from meteorites—when organic compounds from these meteorites were mixed with water, they assembled into cell membrane like structures with complex organic compounds. Actually what happens is that these molecules are amphidilic: One of their ends has a preference for water, while the other behaves in an exactly opposite manner. The ends which prefer water form the outer circles of the cell like structures while at the same time hiding within are the inner ends. Such structures could also house other interstellar components, for example quinons which could harness light and other forms of energy required for life processes.

    It appears that amino acids, quinons, amphibilic molecules and the like were transported to the Earth by meteoritic dust or cometary fragments. These could well have kick started the first life processes on our planet.

    Breslow and Cheng (2009) found that the predominant left handed amino acids characteristic of life could indeed have been delivered by meteorites, thus seeding the Earth with the ingredients for life. This new evidence was found on the surfaces of meteorites which had crashed into the earth in relatively recent times. Dr. Breslow exposed amino acid chemical precursors to the amino acids found on the meteorites and discovered that these cosmic molecules could transfer their left handedness to the simple amino acids characteristic of life. This would explain why there is an excess of left handed amino acids in living creatures.

    An important component of early genetic material found in the Murchison meteorite is extraterrestrial in origin (Cooper et al. 2001; Cronin et al. 1993), indicating that life’s raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth. These include uracil and xanthine, which are precursors to the molecules that make up DNA and RNA, and are known as nucleobases. Further analysis demonstrated that these nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space—those formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon (Martins 2008).

    Joseph (2009) argues that these key DNA ingredients are evidence for extra-terrestrial life. Further, he suggests the DNA of living organisms may have been shattered by cosmic rays, and this explains the presence of these DNA-related substances. Although this is not beyond the realm of possibility, Dr. Zita Martins (Martins 2008), concludes otherwise:

    “We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments…. which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations" (Martins et. al 2008).

    Between 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago large numbers of rocks similar to the Murchison crashed down to Earth at the time when primitive life was forming. The heavy bombardment delivered large amounts of meteorite material to the surface on planets like Earth and Mars. Joseph (2009) argues that this material represents the fragments of a planetary system which orbited a "parent star." Further, he speculates that this debris harbored life. As speculation and theory, the idea is intriguing. However, the evidence for microfossils is not conclusive, whereas a number of independent investigators have identified material which is associated with life. This raises the possibility that abiogenesis may occur on many planets including the Earth.

    As summed up by Professor Mark Sephton: “Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system components for life—including nucleobases—could be widespread in the cosmos.”

    According to Professor Akiva Bar-Nun and coworkers (Bar-Nun 2009) the essential ingredients for life to form in the Earth’s ancient environment were available in and delivered by comets. "When comets slammed into the Earth through the atmosphere about four billion years ago, they delivered a payload of organic materials to the young Earth, adding materials that combined with Earth's own large reservoir of organics and led to the emergence of life."

    It must be mentioned that the method of transfer to the Earth of these complex molecules is consistent with the evidence cited by Dr. Joseph. However, it is difficult to agree with Dr. Joseph’s primary premise that only life can produce life, apart from the fact that we do not even have a satisfactory definition of life itself. If the universe has a finite age, as is now universally believed, then life must have also had an origin. Therefore, if life on Earth came from other planets, Joseph (2009) must also explain how life was first formed on those planets.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    This lesson defines abiogenesis and discusses the evidence which supports the theory. This lesson will discuss primitive Earth and the possibilities of how the first life on Earth started from a purely scientific perspective.
    How did life start on Earth? When did it start? These questions remained mysteries for thousands of years of human history. We know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that bacteria could've been found on Earth as early as 3.5 billion years ago. The theory of evolution provides us with an explanation of how life started from a single-celled bacteria and diversified to the millions of species of animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria. But where did the first single cell come from?

    Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter.

    more at link.....
    river likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Here's some more reputable documentation....

    How did life on Earth arise? Scientific efforts to answer that question are called abiogenesis. More formally, abiogenesis is a theory, or set of theories, concerning how life on Earth began (but excluding panspermia).

    Note that while abiogenesis and evolution are related, they are distinct (evolution says nothing about how life began; abiogenesis says nothing about how life evolves).

    Intensive study of the Earth’s rocks has turned up lots and lots of evidence that some kinds of prokaryotes lived happily on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago (and there’re also pointers to the existence of life on Earth in the oldest rocks). So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth … and in no more than a few hundred million years.

    more at link....

    river likes this.
  19. river


    Via , Spontaneous Natural Means . Is the essence of Life .

    Explain .
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
  20. river

    Are we both able to communicate in a respectful way , pad ?
  21. river

    You still have to explain what Spontaneous Natural Means . Means .
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    We don't have an answer. There is no scientific consensus on how life came from non-life.

    Which is another way of saying that there is no scientific consensus on how life came from non-life.

    There is no generally accepted process that explains Abiogenesis. There are some hypotheses, but no consensus theory.

    I shouldn't have to keep repeating this point, so I think I'll stop here.
    Yazata likes this.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I just skimmed through the entire 1.5 hour video from Peltzer.

    It seems that Peltzer is a creationist and evolution denier. Among other things, he testified on behalf of the board in Kansas that was seeking to mandate the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools, unconstitutionally as the court ruled at the time.

    Peltzer's talk in the video is sprinkled liberally with oblique references to an unnamed Intelligent Designer (read God). His argument is mostly based on the low probability of cells being able to form through chemical processes. It is misleading in a number of respects, especially where he does calculations of chemical reaction probabilities and the like, as if the combinations of chemicals take place entirely at random, rather than being determined by the principles of chemistry.

    In general, Peltzer strikes me as an educated man who is willing to bend the truth where it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Clearly, he is very far from being an unbiased source that we can trust when talking about the topic of abiogenesis.

    I didn't sit through the entire 1.5 hours, but I didn't see any mention of poisoning in what I watched

    According to your preferred Creationist "experts".

Share This Page