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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

You're way out on this one (as with most of the other points, like not understanding that consciousness developed progressively in animals that have it and did in fact arise after molecules had assembled into living things).

The bold emphasis is a presupposition, not scientific fact. As with most naturalists, you don't seem to know the difference.

The Miller-Urey experiment (done in 1952, not 1953 ... the results were published in 1953) is not "one failed scientific experiment", and just one of many that naturalists refer to.

Was the experiment an attempt to create life from nonliving material? Yes. Was this accomplished? No.

Results: Fail.

It is known now that the highly reducing atmosphere they assumed is not likely correct, but the point of the experiment was not to produce life, but to test what would happen if a few simple molecules (water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen) were exposed to electrical sparks (to simulate lightning), and heated/cooled through many cycles. They wanted to see if any complex organics could be formed, and they did in fact form several amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, in this simple experiment. So it was a successful experiment (highly referenced because it was the first of its type), and many similar experiments have been carried out since using more appropriate starting atmospheres.

Nonsense. You say "the point of the experiment was not to produce life..."

Yet, an excerpt from https://phys.org/news/2014-01-21st-cent ... e.html#jCp states..

"Their research evaluated the possibility of organic compounds important for the origin of life to have been formed abiologically on early Earth."

So it looks like you are the one that is "way out on this one"...or, way WRONG on this one.

Besides, everyone knows that the Miller-Urey experiment was an attempt to produce life from nonlife. The experiment is well known and well documented. So for you to sit there try to downplay the purpose of the experiment and make it seem like its purpose was for something other than what it was actually for, is disingenuous.

Hell, I bet if they actually succeeded in creating life from inanimate matter, you would have no problem riding the wave of a successful experiment then, wouldn't you?

The bit about consciousness arising before/after "EPOH" is not even debatable. Consciousness is simply the result of normal brain activity (neurons interacting with sensory inputs, memory, etc.)

Sure, that is the theory, but that isn't the science. That isn't what the science is telling you, that is what your naturalistic presupposition is telling you. If it was the science that is telling you that, you should be able to gather all of the brain matter, neurons, sensory inputs, memory, etc, and create consciousness (a thinking brain) from all of this non-thinking material.

After all, that is what mother nature did. But you can't do that, can you? No, you can't.

Without a brain (EPOH) it would not exist, and brains like all physical matter on Earth are made from elementary particles.

We know what brains are made up of. You can have all of the brain matter in the world, but where would you get the consciousness?

So obviously this is not a chicken/egg problem ... EPOH came first, brains came later, and brains create consciousness.

So get all of the EPOH and brain matter, and create consciousness from scratch. Can you do that? No. And this is where you say "But it doesn't work like that"...and my response is "Well, it worked that way for mother nature".

Mother nature pulled it off, and she can't think or see. So why can't intelligent human beings duplicate or simulate what a mindless/blind process was able to do? Makes no sense.

Not a problem in the least for a naturalist, only for people who "refuse to believe" anything scientific that suggests their religious dogma may be incorrect.

Hey, us religious people believe in science, just not voodoo science.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 458 by For_The_Kingdom]

It aint happening. You have to be able to understand what you hear, say, and read. Three different aspects of learning a new language, and there is just no way to learn a "new" language without having someone who reads BOTH languages (yours and theirs) to interpret it for you.

I do find it hilarious just how much you are willing to hang on to this weird idea that people simply can't learn languages, unless there's someone else there to interpret for them (how does the interpreter know both languages?)
What do you think happened with European explorers to Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan? Do you think Abel Tasman landed at New Zealand and he just casually called up the bilingual Dutch-Maori speaker he totally would have had on his ship?

It also doesn't "agree" with the idea that a person who speaks one language can go to a country where his language isn't known/spoken, and wind up, somehow, speaking their language fluently and vice versa at some point.

So go on. Explain how European explorers eventually managed to learn to communicate with the natives of the countries they were exploring, without them needing an interpreter first.
Just so there's no miscommunication between us, no-one here is saying that these people would know the languages instantaneously.

Well, tell "them" to go to a foreign country where English is hardly spoken, and go around trying to hold conversations with people and see how far they get.

Obviously they wouldn't get very far...at first. No-one is disputing that. However, given enough time and effort, they more than likely would learn to speak each other's languages, which you for some strange reason are disputing.

Was the experiment an attempt to create life from nonliving material? Yes. Was this accomplished? No.

Results: Fail.

Is a failed experiment a bad thing in science?

So get all of the EPOH and brain matter, and create consciousness from scratch. Can you do that? No.

God of the gaps. Literally. You are arguing that before 1903, people could take all the materials they would want but because they can't figure out how to fly yet, therefore it MUST be God magic that's responsible for flight.

So why can't intelligent human beings duplicate or simulate what a mindless/blind process was able to do? Makes no sense.

What makes you think that we have to be able to duplicate a natural process immediately? It took us years before we were able to discover the secrets behind flight. Your attitude would have scoffed at the idea of artificial flight.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 459 by For_The_Kingdom]

The bold emphasis is a presupposition, not scientific fact. As with most naturalists, you don't seem to know the difference.

No, it isn't a presupposition. It is a fundamental result of an accepted theory (evolution) which has proven that every living thing on this Earth evolved from earlier forms. At one point far enough back in time when the only living things were bacteria, archaea, and possibly other similar single-celled organisms, most people would agree that consciousness was not present. So there was a time on this planet when there was life, but no consciousness. Then, without any break in the long march of evolution, multicellular creatures appeared (eg. sponges), also without consciousness. Eventually, more complex, multicellular creatures appeared with new body constructions like bones and internal organs that handled separate tasks, and simple brains also appeared on the scene (in worms). These brains became more and more complex along with the creatures, and at some point consciousness arose when brains because sufficiently capable of creating this "thing." So it was a progressive process and not any sort of presupposition ... that is unless you are claiming that evolution is a false theory. In that case you are denying proven science and there is no point in debating the issue. You simply "refuse to believe" for personal reasons that fly in the face of the last 150 years of science.

Was the experiment an attempt to create life from nonliving material? Yes. Was this accomplished? No.

Results: Fail.

Wrong again. The experiment was NOT an attempt to create life from nonliving material. Even your own quote (which was not from the original article, but from a PHYS.ORG web article), shows this. I'll repeat your quoted excerpt here:

"Their research evaluated the possibility of organic compounds important for the origin of life to have been formed abiologically on early Earth."

Read that again ... they "evaluated the possibility" that "organic compounds important for the origin of life" could have formed abioligically. They were not trying to "create life" as you put it, but only to see if any organic compounds related to an origin of life process could be produced. The experiment did in fact produce some amino acids so was a success in that regard. The chirality was wrong for life (the amino acids that form proteins are mostly "left handed" rather than a racemic (50/50) mix as in the experiment), but that isn't the point. The point of the experiment was to see if any organic compounds would be produced that related to an abiogenesis idea (life forming from an abiological process), not to create life.

Besides, everyone knows that the Miller-Urey experiment was an attempt to produce life from nonlife. The experiment is well known and well documented. So for you to sit there try to downplay the purpose of the experiment and make it seem like its purpose was for something other than what it was actually for, is disingenuous.

See above ... the experiment was not an attempt to create life from nonlife ... it was to investigate whether complex organic molecules (eg. amino acids) could be produced that could lend support to an abiogenesis argument. That is very different from "trying to create life from nonlife." You're simply mischaracterizing the experiment. Read the original paper:

http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf

In the first paragraph he notes that the idea that organic compounds which serve as the basis of life might be formed in a reducing atmosphere had been floating around, then in the second paragraph he starts "in order to test this hypothesis", the experiment described was carried out. So the point of the experiment, directly from the horse's mouth, was to "test the hypothesis" that the organic compounds that serve as the basis for life could be formed. No statement in the paper suggests that they were trying to create life itself, and if "everybody knows" they were trying to create life from nonlife, then "everybody" has not read the paper (instead, they probably got their interpretation from some third party description such as a religious website or pamphlet).

After all, that is what mother nature did. But you can't do that, can you? No, you can't.

You got one right! Mother nature can and did do this via a process called evolution by natural selection. Multicellular life forms existed without consciousness, and they evolved from single-celled organisms. Then these nonconcsiousness multicellular organisms evolved into more complex organisms with simple brains, and eventually creatures arose with more complex brains capable of sentience. And humans cannot orchestrate this process in a lab (yet anyway). But it is good to see that you finally admit that the evolution of consciousness was a natural process ("mother nature did it"). Now you just need to accept that it was a progressive process and arose only when brains reached the necessary level of complexity of function to create it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No, it isn't a presupposition. It is a fundamental result of an accepted theory (evolution) which has proven that every living thing on this Earth evolved from earlier forms.

No one is denying that things change over time...the area of contention is the extent at which things change. You say reptiles evolved into birds, I say the evidence doesn't support such a change.

At one point far enough back in time when the only living things were bacteria, archaea, and possibly other similar single-celled organisms, most people would agree that consciousness was not present.

It wasn't.

So there was a time on this planet when there was life, but no consciousness. Then, without any break in the long march of evolution, multicellular creatures appeared (eg. sponges), also without consciousness. Eventually, more complex, multicellular creatures appeared with new body constructions like bones and internal organs that handled separate tasks, and simple brains also appeared on the scene (in worms).

Aww crap, here we go...things are about to suddenly get voodooish up in here...

These brains became more and more complex along with the creatures, and at some point consciousness arose when brains because sufficiently capable of creating this "thing."

See, now we are officially in voodooville. You've just left science right there. And it happened so fast that you didn't even see it coming. Right when you said "and at some point consciousness arose", you just left science and resorted to voodoo, or...RELIGION.

That's not what the scientific data shows. That's not what any experiment or observation shows. That is what the naturalists ASSUMES took place in order to explain something that nature hasn't been able to duplicate or simulate.

So it was a progressive process and not any sort of presupposition ...

Call it what you want, just don't call it science.

that is unless you are claiming that evolution is a false theory.

Macroevolution is a false theory.

In that case you are denying proven science and there is no point in debating the issue.

I don't have to accept/believe everything I am told if I feel it doesn't reflect reality.

You simply "refuse to believe" for personal reasons that fly in the face of the last 150 years of science.

I refuse to believe because the evidence doesn't support the claim/theory.

Wrong again. The experiment was NOT an attempt to create life from nonliving material. Even your own quote (which was not from the original article, but from a PHYS.ORG web article), shows this. I'll repeat your quoted excerpt here:

"Their research evaluated the possibility of organic compounds important for the origin of life to have been formed abiologically on early Earth."

Read that again ... they "evaluated the possibility" that "organic compounds important for the origin of life" could have formed abioligically. They were not trying to "create life" as you put it, but only to see if any organic compounds related to an origin of life process could be produced.

Bro, what are you talking about?

"Their research evaluate the possibility of organic compounds important for the origin of life to have formed abiologically on Earth".

In essence, when you take away the technical babble, "they were trying to create life from nonliving material".

Excerpt from https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/ ... _urey.html

"Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions."


"...lends support to the theory that the first life forms AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY THROUGH NATURALLY OCCURING CHEMICAL REACTIONS".

Thus: LIFE FROM NONLIVING MATERIAL.

If you can't even be honest about that kind of stuff, then there is no point in even discussing this topic.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 462 by For_The_Kingdom]

"Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions."

"...lends support to the theory that the first life forms AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY THROUGH NATURALLY OCCURING CHEMICAL REACTIONS".

Thus: LIFE FROM NONLIVING MATERIAL.

If you can't even be honest about that kind of stuff, then there is no point in even discussing this topic.

You're twisting words and using another third party's comments. The Miller experiment did lend support to the idea that life could have arisen from nonliving material ... because it did produce amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. I'm not claiming that Miller didn't do the experiment to lend support to this idea, I'm claiming (based on the actual paper), that he was not trying to create life in that particular experiment, which is your contention. He was testing the hypothesis that complex organic molecules could be produced from a simple 4-component reducing atmosphere (thought at the time to represent the early Earth's atmosphere), along with electrical input and thermal cycling. That's it ... that was the goal of the experiment. At no point does Miller claim or even discuss in this incredibly short paper the creation of life as a result of the experiment.

Even your third party quote above just states that the experiment, along with other information lends support to the idea that life could have arisen from nonliving materials. I maintain that the experiment itself had no intention to create life as its goal ... only to test the hypothesis (as stated in the paper) that complex organic molecules could be created in such an experiment, and it succeeded in doing that.

See, now we are officially in voodooville. You've just left science right there. And it happened so fast that you didn't even see it coming. Right when you said "and at some point consciousness arose", you just left science and resorted to voodoo, or...RELIGION.

I've tried to get you to answer in previous posts when you think consciousness appeared in the animal kingdom, but can't get an answer. I assume you would agree that no plants have consciousness, and this property is restricted to members of the animal kingdom. And you'd also agree that bacteria and sponges and many "lower" animals do not have consciousness. But at what point do you believe consciousness first appeared (or, if you like, what animal first displayed this feature)? Are dogs conscious? What about fish, or worms? My point with the word "progressive" is that the transition between animals without consciousness and those with consciousness was not a sudden event (like a "creation"), and this is what the scientific evidence shows. What animal do you think was the first to display consciousness? You don't seem to be able to answer that question.

I do believe life arose from nonliving materials myself, but we can't yet show a detailed mechanism for how it happened. Invoking "god of the gaps" to claim life was created by a deity simply because science has yet to find the answer is more akin to voodoo thinking than considering that some sort of abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. event is feasible and science just hasn't yet solved the problem. The original Miller experiment, and the many similar experiments carried out since 1952, do lend support to an abiogenesis possibility, but you seem to reject that completely for no reason other than that you simply don't believe it could have happened. It may well turn out not to be the correct answer, but it also can't be ruled out at this point ... it is still an open science problem.

Macroevolution is a false theory.

Really? This is just another opinion based on ignoring mountains of evidence supporting macroevolution, a valid theory which has yet to be falsified. You should grab a copy of The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, or just read some Wikipedia articles, to get some facts on the subject. Do you not believe that amphibians evolved from fish, and that reptiles evolved from amphibians? Or do you draw the line at humans evolving from a common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos because you don't believe that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor (despite the extensive fossil and genetic evidence supporting this conclusion), because humans are "special"?

I refuse to believe because the evidence doesn't support the claim/theory.

The evidence in support of evolution (micro and macro) is overwhelming. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to believe it doesn't make it a false theory. An abiogenesis process for the origin of life on this planet is still an open research problem, and as such it cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

[Clownboat]

No, it isn't a presupposition. It is a fundamental result of an accepted theory (evolution) which has proven that every living thing on this Earth evolved from earlier forms.

No one is denying that things change over time...the area of contention is the extent at which things change. You say reptiles evolved into birds, I say the evidence doesn't support such a change.

If populations of animals change over time, please point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point.

If you cannot, then small changes will become large changes. Micro will become macro. If I continue to make small steps, I will eventually walk a mile. That is, unless there is something there to stop my continual small steps from reaching a mile in distance.

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

[DBSmith]

[Replying to liamconnor]

“Based on my…definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?�

Simply stated, NO! Not even close. Yes, forests have been sacrificed; there are decades of books and articles, but they all fall incredibly short, which is the fascinating part. With the increase in scientific knowledge over time, no support exists to show this at all. Lots of ideas and trials, specifically designed experiments have been performed for years, but in the end they have all fallen short to prove such a conclusion. But, folks still quote age-old hopeful articles as if they are valid and true. Herein lies the problem with real science getting out to people.


Life comes from life; the sperm and the egg, are alive and well in the bodies of the parents and come together to create a new life….and we all know the biological complexities throughout the animal kingdoms.

Finding an atom or molecule in odd places and even from space doesn’t create life or even come close to supporting evolution. Nor does creating a make believe atmosphere with sparks lighting up the flask to create biochemicals define life. Its just a new way to synthesize biochemicals, that’s all. But, you know what? It sells books, makes money and will get you that department chair job if you subscribe. This was all battled about 15 yrs ago right? When there was a congressional hearing and investigation on science journals for excluding articles on intelligent design and the like. Do you remember? Scientists were found guilty as charged. As a result teachers in classrooms can now teach alternate ideas on the origin of life as long as they are not indoctrinating students with specific religious tenets. Each state has their own limitations and extensions on it.

Well, maybe you didn’t read or hear about it. The liberal media didn’t let the world know. In 2005 or so as I recall, the evolutionists went to the Galapagos Island (Woodstock for Evolutionists, or something like that, was the first article I read) to lick their wounds and draw up a proclamation to the world that evolution is still true. The media ran the proclamation, but did not give the background, only gave support for evolution.

You might want to think on that for a moment. You won’t particularly read about it in a lot of science books. Should we ever wonder why? Its been said by enough of those who have handled the (pre)human fossil remains, not all the hominids and the like, but pre-human (and I’m not trying to argue on the definition of a word here, just keeping it simple) …..that all of those fossils would fit on the flat surface of a pool table or won’t fill a coffin, etc… Some one finds a tooth or a jaw fragment and the next person turns it into a skull, the next person designs a complete body and another tells us how they walked and we see the full version on a TV documentary in a community or hunting……telling our children for ages that these things are true! Do you know any of these children?

Evolution is a theory and has its place, and certainly is a way to catalogue and put all our scientific thoughts on the subject into an easily accessible storage bin. It’s a great theory on its own with many avenues to pursue, but its just a theory.

There are absolutely no transitions from one kind of animal to another on record. There are different kinds of felines and canines, all types of animals, etc….with a fulnes of the DNA after their kind to make variations after their kind, ….but no evidence of change into another not of its kind ….only lots of speculation that there is.

And the complexity issue was put to rest a while ago, for atoms to assemble and molecules to form …and for life, to somehow, some way, appear as a single cell and progress and blossom into the flora and fauna of today. This makes it a great science fiction story because it is without any proof. There are wonderful thoughts and stimulating ideas to pursue and discuss, but remember, not a shred of proof exists. And that’s OK, its how we learn. It only becomes a problem when it is sold and billed as being true and proven. Cars and air conditioners are not constructed on such faulty science. Rocket ships and computers are built and based on solid well proven and reproducible facts. Think about it. Why are we pretending that we know as much about life as we do of scientific inventions and the like?

I love science and medicine…built a career living and experiencing it. And, I have come to know its limitations in this respect. Its just not there, the proof.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 465 by DBSmith]

Evolution is a theory and has its place, and certainly is a way to catalogue and put all our scientific thoughts on the subject into an easily accessible storage bin. It’s a great theory on its own with many avenues to pursue, but its just a theory.

You're falling for the "just a theory" argument and confusing theory and hypothesis (implying that because something is referred to as a "theory" that it is only a hypothesis). That is not how the formal scientific method works. A hypothesis is presented, then experiments and observations are made in an effort to support, or shoot down, the hypothesis. Only when sufficient experimental and observational support are obtained, peer reviewed, subjected to full scrutiny and no falsifications found, does something reach the exalted status of "theory." There are many examples of hypotheses which have successfully passed this process and are now called theories (eg. the theory of tectonic plates, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution by natural selection, and many others).

Evolution is now called a theory because it has been conclusively shown to be valid, both on the micro and macro scales (given enough time). It is in fact how life diversified on this planet starting from single-celled organisms some 4 billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million). The experimental and observations evidence for it are overwhelming, and the genetics work over the past 40 years as just confirmed what the fossil record had shown prior to the "genetics revolution." That entire body of evidence cannot be simply discarded with a statement that it is "just a theory." You have to do much better than that!

And your statements about "prehuman" fossils are also far from correct, even though you don't specify exactly what you mean by "prehuman." Are you not aware of the relatively recent Homo naledi find ... more than enough fossil bones there to fill up several pool tables (you can read about the discovery in Lee Berger's new book Almost Human, 2017, National Geographic Partners). Or the very recent finds in Morocco which put Homo sapiens present 100,000 years earlier than thought (the Omo remains at nearly 200,000 years old were generally considered the oldest Homo sapien remains prior to this recent discovery in Morocco, which is dated to about 300,000 years ago):

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40194150

Prehuman and genus Homo fossils are extremely rare and hard to find, but we're making discoveries like the above all the time and filling in gaps in the human evolution story. But there is no doubt that evolution is a valid theory and finds like these recent Homo finds just add more confirmation. Humans do share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, reptiles did evolve from amphibians who evolved from fish, etc. etc. You can certainly expect to be challenged on sweeping statements that evolution has never been "proven" in the Science and Religion section of this website, and will need to do more than just make general statements without any support when there is a mountain of evidence to support the theory of evolution generally.

As for abiogenesis, this is still in the hypothesis stage, along with other possible ideas for the origin of life on this planet (eg. panspermia). You don't hear people talking about the "theory of abiogenesis" because it has not reached that point. A lot more work is needed to either prove, or disprove, the hypothesis, but it can't be ruled out at this point. We simply don't yet know the answer and it remains an open scientific question.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 465 by DBSmith]

. There are absolutely no transitions from one kind of animal to another on record.

That might be because 'kind' is NOT a valid scientific and biological term.

[ttruscott]

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[quote=""IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL"
©1986 by Paul D. Ackerman"]...the the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all real processes in the physical universe—when isolated and left to themselves—go irreversibly downhill toward increasing disorder and chaos.

Evolution only works in the imaginations of evolutionist scholars like George Wald and William R. Bennett. In the real world, any system posited to produce ordered and meaningful outcomes will inevitably be subject to the processes of decay and disordering known to scientists as the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
http://www.creationism.org/books/ackerm ... Chap13.htm[/quote]