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]

I think Clownboat would say no. I think Clownboat would say "given enough time, provided the snakes survive, and provided environmental conditions changed enough that for the snakes to continue to survive, they would have to change, they would change into something (not necessarily a pig)".

Why a snake into a pig? Is your argument deadset on arguing that evolutionists 'predict' that snakes will evolve into pigs and pigs only?

Oh, don't get the wrong idea...it doesn't necessarily have to change into a pig. Just take any arbitrary non-snake life form, and the point will be made just as fine.

If a species over many successive generations builds up changes in its physical structure, what is the mechanism that prevents that species from say...growing fur?

I guess the same mechanisms that is preventing them from growing fur right now.

While completely ignoring the fossil record and the entire field of genetics. Got'cha.

Got any complete fossil records? And what does genetics tell us?

If you want to believe that long ago, when you were conveniently not here to witness it, that a spirit being of some sort whose existence you have never been able to satisfactorily prove, was able to conjure up animals in their modern day forms...

LOL.

that isn't science. That is religion, because you are relying on the unseen.

I admit that mines is a religion. You, on the other hand..

I notice you don't actually name or explain what this mechanism actually is...

Because I don't know.

Time, changes in the environment, and luck. Of course, I can guess that you're thinking in the short term, as in you're thinking of the immediate offspring (the literal next generation).

I guess Eskimo's living in the artic for thousands of years should begin to grow fur, then, eh?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Doesn't matter. With regards to the question of life on Earth, the only thing that matters with regard to it and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is...is there anything supplying energy/heat to the Earth? The answer to that is yes...the Sun.

Even if we consider the entirety of the universe and that it's own energy is not being replenished...so what?

How does that disprove the notion of abiogenesis on Earth? You do realize the universe is a big place, I hope? With many billions of stars and galaxies? It'll be a LONG time before we have to worry about running out of energy from stellar neighbours to fuel the formation of life on Earth.

If you don't start off with a fine-tuned universe, then all of this abiogenesis/earth/galaxy stuff doesn't mean a DAMN thing.

Which can be anything, even a Godly creation.

No argument from me.

Notice also that you too have the same problem of origins. Your go to tactic is to try to disprove evolution and/or abiogenesis, as if that somehow proves creationism true.

Law of excluded middle.

[Kenisaw]

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.

"Complex organic molecules" is pretty much LIFE, bruh. Every time it appears you are being disingenuous about what the experiment entails, I will simply paste an excerpt of a credible website which states otherwise...

"Stanley Miller reported that he had conducted an experiment which replicated the primeval conditions on Earth and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3161

"...and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

In other words: Life from nonlife.

Right. Since all living things are made up entirely out of non-living atoms and molecules, life IS nonlife.

The chemicals were essential for life to begin. That doesn't mean that the chemicals changed in any way. The laws of the universe didn't stop working or affecting those molecules.

Why this has to be constantly explained to you is a mystery....

[Clownboat]

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

So basically, what you are saying is; given enough time, a snake can evolve into a pig? If you say no, then I will challenge you to point to the mechanism that is in place that stops this kind of change at some point on the evolutionary scale.

That is not what I said. Please read more carefully.
"If populations of animals change over time, please point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point."

And whatever answer you give, I will use that same answer to answer your question in the above quote.

There is no mechanism that would stop such a thing from happening that I'm aware of. You seem to think that their is, so I'm asking you (twice now) to describe this mechanism that stops little changes from accumulating into large changes.

If you cannot, then small changes will become large changes.

Right, so in that case...given enough time, a snake will evolve into a pig.

It could happen sure (not that it would be an actual pig, but it could resemble one), but there is nothing driving snakes to evolve into pigs. No idea where you pulled that from. Evolution is changes, not something that has some end goal in mind.

Micro will become macro. If I continue to make small steps, I will eventually walk a mile.

Will you begin to evolve wings as you walk?

These kind of responses tell me that you know you have lost this point of debate and that you cannot describe a mechanism that would stop micro changes from accumulating into larger changes.

That is, unless there is something there to stop my continual small steps from reaching a mile in distance.

You can speculate all you want. I am going by what thousands of years of observation has told us, which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

And there we have it folks. He limits himself to only look at thousands of years of observations while analyzing a process that takes millions of years.

A human cannot run a mile in 30 seconds, and that is basically what you are trying to do here.
"I have watched you run for 30 seconds and you have not ran a mile, therefore you cannot run a mile".

If you want to believe that long ago, when you were conveniently not here to witness it, that the animals of yesterday was able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do....

You mean like evolving to digest nylon? Yes, I do in fact want to believe this fact. Why do you choose to ignore it is the real question.
'Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that are capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium sp. KI72, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known[1] as nylonase.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

and that the animals of tomorrow will begin to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do...then you are entitled to believe it.

I think you mean I am entitled to acknowledge this fact. Yes, I acknowledge this fact that there are organisms that can now do things that they couldn't in the past.

However, that isn't science. That is religion, because you are relying on the unseen.

Your words have just been proven to be false. What have you to say about your folly?

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

It is the same mechanism which allows my next door neighbors (figuratively) dogs to have dog offspring. So you tell me what mechanism will ALLOW my next door neighbors dogs to produce non dogs?

Notice readers that he knows he cannot refute the fact that micro changes will eventually add up to macro changes. Will he amend his thinking? Not if his religious beliefs have anything to say about it. Yeah religion!

I propose that there is no mechanism in place that stops small changes from adding up to large changes over time. Seems logical to me at this time, but if anyone can at least allude to this mechanism, I would be all ears.

[McCulloch]

So basically, what you are saying is; given enough time, a snake can evolve into a pig? If you say no, then I will challenge you to point to the mechanism that is in place that stops this kind of change at some point on the evolutionary scale.

Given enough time and the right selective pressures, cold blooded vertebrates evolve into warm blooded vertebrates. Fur and feathers evolved from scales.

Will you begin to evolve wings as you walk?

Maybe. If I am a wingless creature that survives measurably better with whatever is the next step towards having wings is. Evolution is always about the next step, never about the long term goal.

You can speculate all you want. I am going by what thousands of years of observation has told us, which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

But there is strong evidence that at one time, long ago, there were fish but no dogs. Fifteen hundred years ago, there were no speakers of English. But both common sense and observation show that everyone who speaks English learned it from someone else who speaks English. Similarly other languages. Greek speakers beget Greek speakers; Latin speakers beget Latin speakers; Hebrew speakers beget Hebrew speakers. No one gets up and says, "I'm going to speak a language that no one else speaks." How does a new language emerge? When everyone speaks a language indistinguishable from whatever language they were taught, how can a new language arise? Was there ever a first person to speak English? Answer those questions and you will understand evolution better.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 481 by For_The_Kingdom]

Complex organic molecules" is pretty much LIFE, bruh. Every time it appears you are being disingenuous about what the experiment entails, I will simply paste an excerpt of a credible website which states otherwise...

"In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance."

This is just a rehash of the same misguided arguments you have presented before. And the quotes you use yourself kill your own argument that the experiment was done to create life. These quotes are simply saying that the experiment tested the hypothesis (as is stated in the original paper) that complex organic molecules necessary for life might be formed from electrical and thermal input to a mixture of the 4 gases thought to represent the early Earth's atmosphere.

Since some amino acids were in fact produced, the experiment provided evidence that some type of abiogenesis event could have possibly happened. That is as far as it went ... never did Miller claim he was trying to create life, and none of the quotes and websites you bring up make that claim either. It is only you who are making the claim that the Miller experiment had as its goal to create life from nonlife, and giving quotes and links that make no such claim themselves. You just present them, then throw out an "in other words" followed by your own translation that the Miller experiment intended to create life. Just read the original paper that I sent a link for earlier.

Note, too, that if no complex organic molecules had been formed it would not have lended support to an abiogenesis origin for life, but also would not have ruled that out either (maybe the atmosphere they assumed was not correct ... something we actually do know now was the case ... or the other conditions were not realistic for the effects of real lightning, etc.). It would probably have been a forgotten experiment until someone else came along and did another variation of it that did produce amino acids, and we'd be talking about that one.

Also, complex molecules are not "pretty much life" ... where did you get that one from? There are countless complex molecules, even organic ones, that have nothing to do with "life." Have a look at these dye molecules (first link) and a poison called ciguatoxin (second link):

http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.or ... rants.html

https://www.whoi.edu/science/B/redtide/ ... ucture.gif

These are complex molecules, and are not "pretty much life." There are countless other examples. Here is an excellent link for what the 20 common amino acids that do make up life look like:

http://www.imgt.org/IMGTeducation/Aide- ... formuleAA/

It really is amazing that the genetic code specifies only these 20 amino acids to build the tens of thousands of proteins necessary for life. The fact that all living things from humans down to bacteria utilize this same basic genetic code (or only slight variations of it), when there are thousands of possible amino acids that could be formed:

http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evol ... s-origins/

is a key foundation of the idea that all life evolved from some common ancestor.

I am less concerned about when life forms achieved consciousness, and more concerned about where consciousness originated from in the first place.

Well, so you agree that at least some animals "behind" humans in the evolutionary chronology have consciousness. This is progress. Worms may have consciousness, fish and dogs get a "Yup."

The argument is "It is impossible for consciousness (non-physical), to have been produced by physical entities (brains, etc)."

So we have a lineage of animals that clearly do not have consciousness (bacteria, sponges, etc.), then a group that might (worms), then fish and mammals that do. Since consciousness is produced by the brain, can't you see that it was brain development that produced consciousness? Or are you arguing that consciousness is not produced by brain activity? If so, what else is producing it? Only animals with brains have it, and death ends it. Is it just a coincidence that consciousness appeared in animals only when brains had developed sufficiently to create awareness, etc.? Consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity, and brains are made up of nonliving molecules organized in complex structures that carry out complex functions when interconnected as they are in a brain. The result is the ability to think, be aware, etc., and this capability is purely the function of a brain.

Nonsense. What do you mean "lend support"? Either you can go in a lab and produce life from nonliving material, or you can't. There is no middle ground.

No argument there ... either you create life in the lab or you don't if your experiment has as its goal to create life. But if your experiment has as its goal to test a hypothesis that complex organic molecules necessary for life might be produced, and some complex organic molecules that are necessary for life are produced, then this does in fact lend support to the idea that life could possibly have formed in a similar way. It does not prove it, but the Miller experiment was not done to create life in a flask from nonliving materials as you keep claiming. It was done to test a hypothesis and it did not get a negative result, thereby lending support to the original idea that prompted it. It remains to be proven how life originated on this planet, but so far an abiogenisis event cannot be ruled out and the Miller experiment was just one simple test done 65 years ago that did not eliminate it as an option.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 488 by For_The_Kingdom]

Or you can just stop being disingenuous and call the experiment what it has been documented over the past 60 years as...an attempt to produce life from nonliving material.

Why on earth do you keep saying this?! The original paper is available for reading, so there is no need whatsoever to use anything written or said about it after it was published in 1953. And the original paper clearly states that it was done to test the hypothesis that complex organic molecules of the type needed for life could be created via electrical and thermal actions on a simple mixture of 4 gases. Nowhere in the paper is there any discussion or even implication that they were trying to create life from nonliving material, as you keep insisting was the intention. You keep making that claim over and over when it is clearly wrong. Here are the actual first two paragraphs of the original paper:

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

"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and water was suggested by Oparin (1) and has been given emphasis recently by Urey (2) and Bernal (3).

In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was built to circulate CH4, NH3, H2O and H2 past an electric discharge. The resulting mixture has been tested for amino acids by paper chromatography. Electrical discharge was used for form free radicals instead of ultraviolet light, because quartz absorbs wavelengths short enough to cause photo-dissociation of the gases. Electrical discharge may have played a significant role in the formation of compounds in the primitive atmosphere."

Where in the above direct quote from the original paper's introduction do you get the idea that they were trying to "produce life from nonliving material"? The entire paper is only 10 paragraphs long, and after these first two the next 6 paragraphs describe the experiment and the results. Then in paragraph 9 he states:

"In this apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the formation of amino acids..."

There is never any discussion ... at all ... of an attempt to produce life of any kind, yet you keep insisting that this was the intention. This isn't a subjective argument ... the paper is available for anyone to read and speaks for itself. Read it!

[DBSmith]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

“Give me one example that can falsify the theory and your job is done.�

So, essentially, you are asking me to disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist? Since common ancestry has not been proven to exist, you want me to prove that it doesn’t exist? It already doesn’t exist. If it did, we all would have read about it in a landmark article since it would be the breakthrough that so many have been hoping for. There would be a Nobel Prize awarded, etc…. The details would be carefully recorded and we would be teaching the specific details in our schools, the biography of the scientists, etc…. But, such details don’t exist….just more theories of those connecting dots, just hoping……with too much exclusion. And so, Congress now allows alternatives to the theory of evolution to be taught in our schools as mentioned in earlier posts.

And, I’ll consider simple logic: modus pollens. If p, then q. p (your stated fossil and genetic analyses) has not been proven as valid support for life evolving as discovered & written, therefore q, (common ancestor) cannot be true based upon p. It’s really quite simple. It doesn’t mean the factoids carefully selected, ignoring many other factoids, to support the theory of evolution are individually false, only that they collectively, no matter how aligned, do not conclusively support a common ancestor. The literature is full speculation on this. There are no intermediates. Transitional forms have not been found and successfully proven. If they existed, again, we would not be having this conversation. We all know Newton’s laws of motion and accept them because they have been proven; they are not the theories of motion. (Now, I’m excluding quantum mechanics and relativity.) The theory of evolution still remains a theory no matter how hard one chooses to push it, and a common ancestor continues to remain elusive. The evidence is just not there using our current Newtonian math & sciences.

My point on the human chimp DNA studies is mainly the part about leaving out that the studies are done on only 2% of the DNA. Has a deceptive, misleading look to it. Wouldn’t that be an important part to mention in many of these science articles that choose to leave it out. Most clinical medicine articles include this information. And the DNA catalogues with the complete genomes comparing the sequences by computer have their own unique set of problems. But, they certainly bring the complementary identity between chimp and human much, much higher. But the discussions of the conclusions fail to mention if a higher number is, indeed, significant. How much of a DNA difference is needed to allow human function to excel above all the animals? Since we are all made of “the dust of the earth,� that is, the same molecules, we would expect a lot of close similarities in muscle, tendon and bone, and similarities in DNA to maintain the anatomy and support the life contained therein. So, essentially, no percentage would prove the existence of a common ancestor by comparison using the computer methods that are currently available and the DNA genomes constructed by current methods. It would support genetically what we already know phenotypically about humans and apes and the like.

And, you are right, “it is the best we have,� but that doesn’t make it all proven. And your notations on the number of articles certainly supports the popularity of evolution, …and the findings of the congressional investigation I’ve mentioned early, that found scientific journals guilty of excluding articles that didn’t favor their beliefs and understandings of science. So, the “gigantic� volume of papers you exclaim don’t include valid scientific criticisms that, indeed, do not support evolution…the papers exist, but were not allowed to be published. And there has not been that big of a change since congress found them guilty as charged.

Also, you should look into the accuracy and reproducibility of many scientific articles you are mentioning. It is not very high. Research it out. And you need to do this on your own to know for yourself if you are truly objective. May I suggest that you see what the financial side of the house has to say first, since, for example, the US gov’t applies over $30 billion annually to the NIH for scientific research funding. And their reviews and others finds up to 90% or so of their money is not being used on reproducible research projects and reproducible and accurate publications. Some reviews have 30-50% for reliable publications though. Still doesn’t look good. And biology articles, if I recall correctly, are the worse in terms of reliability. So, there is a bigger picture that clouds all the supposed scientific support, and it even appears in clinical medicine …it exists none-the-less.

So, things may not be as fundamentally solid as many are led to believe in the wonderful world of scientific research and education. And folks write articles, publish books and make documentaries that leaves all this honesty out of the layman’s awareness in reading and watching. And a lot of the authors of best sellers are not even scientists. They data mine the literature and cherry pick the controversies into books that sell, to make money. Kinda reminds me what I was taught about fishing lures. There are 2 kinds of lures: ones that actually catch fish and those that catch the eye of the fisherman (the buyer). With all the high tech that has emerged during my career in the fields of science, one would think that high tech reasoning would follow in what is put out for public consumption. But, this is, indeed, not the case.

So, I have “look[ed] at the entire body of evidence from the fossil record and genetics analyses,� as you suggested, for over 40 years and have asked questions of many professors and philosophers, and it is clearly the overall review that clearly shows that it doesn’t add up, hence, evolution remains a theory and should stay so for now.

And your appeal to religion follows the pattern. The science should be solely based upon scientific merit, not religion or personal beliefs, typically used to discredit folks. Religious folks should be allowed to preach evolution isn’t true and why as much as evolutionists preach it is true and why. Two worlds that should not honestly be in collision, but is maintained as such by a small minority.

More humility may lead one to the truth of these matters, to enlighten others, while sojourning upon this earth. So, religious merit may, indeed, be helpful.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 496 by DBSmith]

So, essentially, you are asking me to disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist?

I'm not asking for that. A hypothesis was made by Darwin and others that life originated by some means on this planet a very long time ago, and by a process called evolution by natural selection the huge diversity of life that exists now came about (along with the huge number of now extinct species that are no longer around). Some refinements to this basic theory have been incorporated after analyses of fossil evidence and modern genetics research, and many tens of thousands of papers have been published that support the basic theory of evolution. No definitive falsifications have been presented that would invalidate the hypothesis, therefore it has reached the status of theory. If you (or anyone) can provide a falsification of the theory then it would have to be abandoned, or refined to accommodate the new results. I was simply asking for such a falsification, because to date none have ever been presented that proved to be legitimate (plenty of attempts by anti-evolutionists, but none that stand up to scrutiny).

the papers exist, but were not allowed to be published

That is a pretty bold statement. Are you claiming that legitimate scientific results were submitted to reputable peer-review science journals, but were not published due to some conspiracy by evolutionists to block them? I seriously doubt that is the case. If anything like that happened and could be proven that journal would quickly cease to have any credibility and would disappear. You mention some congressional finding but I didn't find any reference to it. I've never heard of any journal rejecting papers with legitimate research results that are presented formally and with supporting evidence simply because a reviewer may not agree with the results. If the work was shoddy, lacking proper evidence, reached clearly wrong conclusions by misinterpreting results, etc. then it would be rejected. That is what the peer review process weeds out. There are certainly erroneous results reported in some cases, but those are usually quickly refuted by subsequent research and corrected. But any widespread effort by legitimate science journals to block the publication of research papers because they don't agree with the results, is certainly not the case. I'd like to see the congressional report you mention.

There are no intermediates. Transitional forms have not been found and successfully proven. If they existed, again, we would not be having this conversation.

This has been rehashed too many times to get into here in detail. The fossil record and the last 4 decades of genetics research are consistent with each other, and support the theory of evolution in all cases. There are transitional fossils:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

and gaps are being filled in every year.

And their reviews and others finds up to 90% or so of their money is not being used on reproducible research projects and reproducible and accurate publications. Some reviews have 30-50% for reliable publications though. Still doesn’t look good. And biology articles, if I recall correctly, are the worse in terms of reliability.

This sounds like more conspiracy theory. Where are references to this claim? If you're claiming that 90% of the money is not being spent on research that is one thing, and a management problem. But if you're claiming that 90% of the published research is not reproducible that clearly can't be true. It would make a mockery of the peer review process and again, any journal publishing papers where 90% of the results were not reproducible would vanish quickly ... unless it were (this actually exists) the 'Journal of Irreproducible Results.", which is a tongue-in-cheek publication.

http://www.jir.com/

I know about this because I submitted a paper to it as a joke when I was in graduate school, and it was rejected because the results weren't sufficiently irreproducible! Even they have their standards.

Religious folks should be allowed to preach evolution isn’t true and why as much as evolutionists preach it is true and why.

I have no problem with schools teaching that some people have religious beliefs which teach certain things about creation, how life diversified, etc., and that the fields of science has a different view that is based on observations, experiments and application of the scientific method. Then let the student decide what is more likely to be the truth. Science indicates that most religious beliefs are nothing but myth and allegory, and supported only by ancient tales and hearsay. Evolution is indeed "just a theory", but it has reached that high level because it is supported by mountains of experimental evidence and observation, and has yet to be falsified. You make general comments like "it doesn't add up", but so far haven't pointed to anything concrete to support the claim that evolution and common descent are disproven as valid theories.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 496 by DBSmith]

The science should be solely based upon scientific merit, not religion or personal beliefs, typically used to discredit folks. Religious folks should be allowed to preach evolution isn’t true and why as much as evolutionists preach it is true and why. Two worlds that should not honestly be in collision, but is maintained as such by a small minority.

What do you think happens in (some) churches, Sunday schools, Christian camps?

Religious folk ARE allowed to preach evolution isn't true all the time...they're just not allowed to (yet is still done anyway) in the classroom to a captive audience.
Do you see people from the evolution camp barging their way into, or trying to, the religious studies classroom/church demanding that evolution be taught?