Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[theStudent]

There is the thought/belief/idea/speculation that abiogenesis is possible with the idea of the earth having the right conditions to allow it.

Abiogenesis is not a thought or a belief, nor is it an idea or speculation. Abiogenesis is a fact.

Life came from non-life. The universe began as a hot, hostile-to-life, radiation-filled, explosion. It was LIFELESS, devoid of even the basic elements of life. Now there is a rich and abundant tree of LIFE. (at least here on earth).

So, it is undeniable that life emerged from non-life. The only question remaining is what mechanisms were involved and how. Even if life started elsewhere, it too started from non-life, as the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I was going to ask you to provide those facts, but then I decided against that, since usually when I ask for evidence, I don't get any.

However, I have seen no proof of these claims.
There is no living being that can prove, or has proven that that scientific fact (life comes from life) is wrong.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 23 by SailingCyclops]

Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)? - Anthony M. Poole - September 2002

Life comes in all shapes and sizes, from us humans to bacteria. So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell? The answer is written in the language of the genetic code.

That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related. All life regenerates itself by producing offspring, and over time small changes in the offspring result in small changes to the protein recipes. But because the recipes are written in the same language (the genetic code), it is possible to compare these recipes (and other genes) to build the equivalent of a family tree.

Reconstructing LUCA
The tree of life is without doubt one of the great achievements in biology. But for some researchers it is merely a means to an end. These researchers are trying to reconstruct LUCA, the cell from which all life has evolved. The question they are asking is, which features of the archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes can be traced back to their common ancestor, LUCA?

...its not that simple, for two reasons:

• genes get lost
• genes get swapped

How can we tell if a gene is ancient?

While dealing with gene loss is tricky, it is not an insurmountable hurdle " it just means reconstructing LUCA will be peppered with a lot of educated guesswork, and probably a few gaps. But gene swapping is another matter altogether " it threatens to fell the tree of life, and consign LUCA to the dustbin.

The good news for LUCA biologists is that we seem to be pretty successful at identifying which bits of our nuclear DNA came from the mitochondrion, and which bits were already there. So to some extent, it might be possible to disentangle parts of the tree of life. But is it enough to save LUCA?

...there are plenty of exciting challenges, and many unknowns for those trying to build the tree of life and reconstruct our origins. For instance, just this year a member of a new group of microscopic archaea has been identified from a deep-sea trench. To give you some sense of perspective as to the significance of this discovery, it is roughly equivalent to discovering the first plant!

Anthony Poole received his Ph.D. from Massey University, New Zealand. He did a postdoc at the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology & Evolution, before moving to Stockholm University, on a Swedish Research Council-funded Assistant Professorship, then as a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Research Fellow. His research to date has centered around questions in early evolution, and his current focus is on the origins of DNA and the evolution of the eukaryote cell. He is currently based at the University of Canterbury http://www.biol.canterbury.ac.nz/people/poole.shtml

last universal common ancestor (LUCA)

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, saying,

Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

By analysis of the presumed LUA's offspring groups, the LUA appears to have been a small, single-celled organism. It likely had a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria.

While the gross anatomy of the LUA can only be reconstructed with much uncertainty, its internal mechanisms can be described in some detail, based on the properties currently shared by all independently living organisms on Earth.

The genetic code was most likely based on DNA. Note, however, that some studies suggest that the LUCA may have lacked DNA and been defined wholly through RNA.

The cell probably lived in conditions found in deep sea vents caused by ocean water interacting with magma beneath the ocean floor.

When the LUA was hypothesized, cladograms based on genetic distance between living cells indicated that Archaea split early from the rest of life. This was inferred from the fact that all known archaeans were highly resistant to environmental extremes such as high salinity, temperature or acidity, and led some scientists to suggest that the LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today. Archaea, however, were discovered in less hostile environments and are now believed to be more closely related to eukaryotes than bacteria, although many details are still unknown.

In 2010, ... [a] formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. While the formal test overwhelmingly favored the existence of a single LUA, this does not imply that the LUA was ever alone. Instead, it was one of several early microbes.

While the formal test overwhelmingly favored the existence of a single LUA, this does not imply that the LUA was ever alone. Instead, it was one of several early microbes. However, given that many other nucleotides are possible besides those that are actually used in DNA and RNA today, it is almost certain that all organisms do have a single common ancestor. This is because it is extremely unlikely that organisms which descended from separate incidents where organic molecules initially came together to form cell-like structures would be able to complete a horizontal gene transfer without garbling each other's genes, converting them into noncoding segments. Further, many more amino acids are chemically possible than the twenty found in modern protein molecules.

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought - By Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor | October 5, 2011 12:49pm ET

By comparing the sequences of the genes for this enzyme from hundreds of organisms representing the three domains of life, the researchers constructed a family tree showing how different versions of the enzyme in different species were related. The more similar sequences were, the more closely they were related, and the less similar they were, the more distantly they were related.

One possibility regarding the last universal common ancestor that remains was that it was not a single-celled organism, Whitfield added. Rather, it might have been more of a colony of tiny subcellular entities. "We have no way of telling," he said.

A July 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in LUA.

Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth - By Jason Daley - smithsonian.com

July 26, 2016
New discoveries suggest life likely descends from the inhospitable environment of deep sea vents

While its unlikely that researchers will ever find the exact species that started it all, they recently came up with a pretty good description of LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all of Earth's creatures, sometimes referred to as microbial Eve.

LUCAs genes are those of an extremophile organism that likely lived in an area where seawater and magma meet on the ocean floor, known as hydrothermal vents, reports Nicholas Wade at The New York Times. Similar creatures still haunt these environments among the toxic plumes of sulfides and metals. And many researchers already believe this is where life first began.

I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldnt believe it, Martin tells Michael Le Page at New Scientist. Its spot on with regard to the hydrothermal vent theory.

The genes show that LUCA lived in habitat with no oxygen, Service writes. It also fed on hydrogen gas, meaning it was likely an organism that lived near super-heated volcanic vents where hydrogen gas was likely produced.

But not everyone is convinced that the hydrogen gobbling vent-dweller Martin uncovered is really LUCA. John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge in England, whose research suggests the origins of life began on land and not deep in the ocean, tells Wade that life could have developed elsewhere and then been shoved down into places like hydrothermal vents during global disasters like the Late Heavy Bombardment, a catastrophic period in Earths history between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago in which the planet was reshaped by a shower of asteroids and comets.

In fact, he argues that basic chemistry shows life likely originated in pools of water on land, Darwins warm little ponds. Ultraviolet light from the sun, which does not reach down to hydrothermal vents, he argues, is a key element in that chemistry.

More research is necessary for scientists to unravel the twisting branches of the tree of life and to determine if Martins LUCA is a super-great aunt or the microbial Eve.

Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules"nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids"needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

Nature is so amazingly intelligent. What?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/eart ... ed#default
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/eart ... oon_formed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0063x4x
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0063x57

We must give credit to the creation, for having created itself. What?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzslq
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzss4

Although people in the past, may have thought their myths made sense, and people today think them ridiculously absurd, the myth of evolution may sound sensible to atheist, but a myth is a myth, no matter who is telling the story... and the ridiculous absurdity remains.

Why would anyone accept such apparent fairytales?
It's no wonder some scientists are stunned as to how other scientists can believe in evolution.

Yet it is evident to some, why that is the case...
Having no other foundation, writers on evolution stoop to the tyranny of authority. "All scientists of consequence believe it; no reputable biologist doubts it; informed persons dont question it; all intelligent persons accept it; only those with religious prejudice reject it; it has been proved many times over; no further proof is needed now." So, on and on goes the pressuring and the brainwashing
Breaking their own laws of science - highly educated men are asking us to believe that the universe and all life forms came about spontaneously, without the intervention of any superior living Being - in spite of the fact that French scientist Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that life comes from life.
Imo, it seems, defiant in the face of logic, reason, and sensibility - Asking us to believe that we just happened to be in the right place, at the right time, with all the right circumstances to be able to survive, and at the same time enjoy a diversity of wonderful things - so our mind evolved to be more appreciative than our "animal family" and we know better than to trample on things, like a beautiful flower, unlike our "cousin" - the pig. And there just happened to be around 283 types of mangoes; over 3000 cultivars of the pear; and the extensive list of edibles, and all of life's fasinating marvels has no purpose. Wow. I am actually feeling sick. No wonder the Bible likens them to unreasoning animals.

It is more logical to accept the Bible account that states quite simply that the material universe is an expression of Gods dynamic energy (for Einstein and others have shown that matter is a form of energy). Isn't it?
It is more reasonable to believe the Holy Scriptures, which show that all life forms owe their existence to God, the great Source of life, and that man was created in Gods image. Isn't it?
To both questions - Yes, we do think so.

[SailingCyclops]

I was going to ask you to provide those facts, but then I decided against that, since usually when I ask for evidence, I don't get any.

However, I have seen no proof of these claims.
There is no living being that can prove, or has proven that that scientific fact (life comes from life) is wrong.

Prove what "facts"??? Do we have to prove to you that there was NO life when the earth was a molten mass? Or do you require PROOF that life now exists on earth? Which one of these FACTS do you not believe and require PROOF for?

[SailingCyclops]

There is no living being that can prove, or has proven that that scientific fact (life comes from life) is wrong.

Please provide a link to the "Scientific Paper" laying out a hypothesis that life comes from life. Science please, not some mumbo-jumbo from some holy book. Short of that, your statement it totally irrelevant, and inappropriate in the "Science and Religion" forum. We are not here to prove a crazy theory wrong, we are here to find the truth.

FACT: There was no life on earth in the past, then there was life. Life from non-life.

What is your "Scientific" explanation for this change? Be specific, and abide by the forum rules for this forum.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]

The only difference is that scientists have actually produced the evidence of their truths, whereas the theists openly confess that they merely believe in ancient fables and superstitious rumors on pure faith.

Currently the only difference I can see, where faith is concerned, is that a Christian's faith, is based on evidence that leads him to believe. A scientist's faith is based on his speculative assumptions.
I'm not blaming him for that, because he can't know. How could he?
But calling it fact, that's quite misleading. Call it a fact when you have solid evidence it is a fact, not when you are guessing.
You are misleading a lot of sincere people who are looking to you for answers. (thr "you" in this sentence is/are the scientists)

For example:
Science Fiction?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzslq
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0063x57
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0063x4x
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzss4


Fact?

When Two Asteroids Collide
[youtube][/youtube]

Moon rock or lunar rock is rock that is found on the Earth's moon, or lunar material collected during the course of human exploration of the Moon.

Asteroids collide at 11,000 miles per hour; scientists study debris
Asteroids Collide with Nuclear Explosive Force

Lunar Rocks Are First Direct Evidence of Collision That Formed Moon
What made the moon? Rocks suggest humongous impact.
Moon created in violent collision with Earth, clues in Apollo rocks suggest

Which?

Asteroid danger: Giant space rock to be on collision course with Earth

Perhaps then 2036, we'll get another moon - a bigger one. The surfers will be happy.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 33 by SailingCyclops]

Prove what "facts"??? Do we have to prove to you that there was NO life when the earth was a molten mass? Or do you require PROOF that life now exists on earth? Which one of these FACTS do you not believe and require PROOF for?

Is that a scientific guess, that since life did not exist before, but now it does then it must have come out of nowhere, or on its own?
Isn't the term for such reasoning called ad hoc?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 30 by Talishi]

Whence comes the living God?

Whence comes energy?

If the living God has a purpose, and only intelligent designers can impart purpose to life, what intelligent designer designed God and why aren't we worshiping that one?

For every cause there is an effect - another scientific fact. We are not going around in circles, are we?
Millions are worshipping him, I can't answer for you.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 34 by SailingCyclops]

In Post 31...
You are the one who made the statement that life comes from non-life, and I said I wasn't going to ask you to provide the evidence for your statement, since I don't usually get any. So I said this:

There is no living being that can prove, or has proven that that scientific fact (life comes from life) is wrong.

I think it would be fair for you to prove the contrary.

[Talishi]

Millions are worshipping him, I can't answer for you.

Millions of people thought the Sun went around the Earth too. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with its truth value.

It is not valid to plea, Einstein was a genius and he believed in God.

Events which occur together in time (like taking an aspirin, praying to God, and being relieved of a headache) may not all be causally related.

If you ask, have you stopped beating your wife? you are really asking two questions (Do I beat my wife? Thats the first question).

General rules cannot always be validly applied to specific cases, and a few specific cases cannot be used to form a general rule.

If a claimant tries to use his desired outcome as a premise, he hasnt made his case.

[Divine Insight]

If the living God has a purpose, and only intelligent designers can impart purpose to life, what intelligent designer designed God and why aren't we worshiping that one?

For every cause there is an effect - another scientific fact. We are not going around in circles, are we?

You are making a circular argument if you demand that all living things must have had an intelligent designer, but you claim that your God is exempt from your own argument.

Your proposed God fails your very own argument. You demonstrate the fallacy of your own reasoning every time you propose this.