Abiogenesis

[lunakilo]

Many of the discussions here hit a point where a creationist yells "evolution is silly since live spontaneously arising is too improbable"
To which an evolitionist replies "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"

So why not skip that and just discuss abiogenesis?

Does it make sense to think that life could arise from inorganic matter without the intervention of some deity or not?

 

[Photonic]

Statistically improbable for life to occur, almost impossible for it not too when considering the numbers however.


Statistics can never tell the whole story.

It's also statistically improbable that diamonds form, they certainly have no problem existing naturally though.

 

[nnmartin]

This sounds like a good thread.

Many evolutionists use the same old 'by chance' theory of life just happening - because 'of the numbers involved' - Hogwash if you ask me!

Divine Guidance, Force , Life-Spirit , God - call it what you will.

Abiogenesis was made possible by The Force then once it got going evolution kicked in.

Simple.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Divine Guidance, Force , Life-Spirit , God - call it what you will.

None were involved.

 

[cablescavenger]

This sounds like a good thread.

Many evolutionists use the same old 'by chance' theory of life just happening - because 'of the numbers involved' - Hogwash if you ask me!

Divine Guidance, Force , Life-Spirit , God - call it what you will.

Abiogenesis was made possible by The Force then once it got going evolution kicked in.

Simple.

evolutionists do not call it chance, you will find that is creationists that call it chance.

 

[Krok]

Many evolutionists use the same old 'by chance' theory of life just happening - because 'of the numbers involved' - Hogwash if you ask me!

Which "evolutionists" did this? Could you provide references to where and when these "evolusionists" said this?

 

[jarofthoughts]

[youtube]XhWds7djuWo[/youtube]
How Abiogenesis Works - YouTube

 

[nnmartin]

I am happy not to waste time debating on which poster did or didn't use the word 'chance' in the origins of DNA as this has already been discussed on other threads.

Let's move on with the Abiogenesis theory and see if it makes sense.

jarofthoughts: I cannot see your video - any chance of some text? - thanks

 

[work in progress]

Many of the discussions here hit a point where a creationist yells "evolution is silly since live spontaneously arising is too improbable"
To which an evolitionist replies "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"

So why not skip that and just discuss abiogenesis?

Does it make sense to think that life could arise from inorganic matter without the intervention of some deity or not?

Your Wikipedia reference on abiogenesis mentions the Miller-Urey experiments -- which demonstrated how easy it would be for an early Earth environment to make amino acids - the building blocks for life. The article mentions several proposals to explain the pathway from simple organic molecules to the first self-replicating cells, but it would be impossible to figure out exactly how the first life arose.

The one thing we do know, is that life started very early in Earth history....some time between 3.5 and 3.8 billion years ago. This would not have been very long after the Hadean Period -- the first era of Earth's history, when the planet was still too hot, and too chaotic...experiencing repeated collisions from interplanetary debris in the early solar system.

But, it took more than 2 billion years before the first complex, multicellular life forms arose, so explaining the rise of complex life looks like a bigger problem than getting from organic chemistry to first life. So, the question I want all of you creationists and anti-evolutionists who latch on to the question of: how did life start without being created? to answer, is why would a creator provide the divine spark for life, and then wait for most of Earth's history before moving on to greater challenges?

 

[Krok]

I am happy not to waste time debating on which poster did or didn't use the word 'chance' in the origins of DNA as this has already been discussed on other threads.

Let's move on with the Abiogenesis theory and see if it makes sense.

jarofthoughts: I cannot see your video - any chance of some text? - thanks

No, you made the statement. The same statement all creationists make in their Gish-Gallop. No "evolutionist" has ever said that life developed by "chance". Your whole argument falls flat. Before you start discussing abiogenesis, you have to realize that abiogenesis doesn't depend on chance. It is related to chemistry. Not chance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does it make sense to think that life could arise from inorganic matter without the intervention of some deity or not?

Of course.

 

[lunakilo]

Divine Guidance, Force , Life-Spirit , God - call it what you will.

None were involved.

Nice statements.

Do either of you have eny arguments as to WHY you think they ar correct?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Nice statements.

Do either of you have any arguments as to WHY you think they are correct?

Veddy well.

We observe that chemicals have specific properties, on a daily basis. They exhibit these same properties without our interference. They exhibit the same properties with our interference. Thus we can deduce that their properties remain the same whether influenced from outside or not; the properties are inherent.

In addition we have seen repeatable experiments that have led to the formation of amino acids in conditions which duplicate the conditions on a primordial Earth. Thus, 'with' our interference, we see a natural chemical formation of organic molecules.

Taken logically from these two simple statements, we don't need outside interference in order for natural chemical processes to give rise to organic molecules on primordial Earth.

There, and I didn't even have to give a link to a technical explanation. And I didn't even have to underline that there's no evidence of a divine influence in other aspects, thus no reason to suspect it in any discussion..

 

[lunakilo]

No, you made the statement. The same statement all creationists make in their Gish-Gallop. No "evolutionist" has ever said that life developed by "chance". Your whole argument falls flat. Before you start discussing abiogenesis, you have to realize that abiogenesis doesn't depend on chance. It is related to chemistry. Not chance.

Now you make it sound like things were predestined to turn out the way they did.

As I see it there would be a lot of chance involved.
For example in what atoms and molecules happen to be around, meet and interact.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In a sense they are predestined, in that under the circumstances present when our planet was, what, about a billion and a half years old, everything was present in order for it to happen. Predestined in the same way that if you add a teaspoon of salt to a gallon of fresh liquid water, the salt will dissolve into the water.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And before you note that we needed you to add the teaspoon of salt... the example is to show that chemical properties occur when specific ingredients mix; because no-one's pouring salt into the sea, are they?

 

[nnmartin]

I think the Krok is talking about chemical chance.

ie: random atoms floating around and hooking up with each other until they form something useful. Dictated by the physical laws but chance hookups nonetheless.

 

[nnmartin]

In a sense they are predestined, in that under the circumstances present when our planet was, what, about a billion and a half years old, everything was present in order for it to happen.

That sounds a little religious to me.


Does it not surprise you that all the circumstances to create life just happened to be perfect?

 

[Krok]

Nice statements.
Do either of you have eny arguments as to WHY you think they ar correct?

Although you didn't address me, I would also like to answer from my perspective.

We see it in the fossil record. Seeing that the oldest rocks we study don't appear to have any signs of life, then start appearing to have forms of organic molecules, then start having complex organic molecules, then fossils of prokaryotic organisms appear, it is very likely that life didn't poof out of nowhere. The rocks don't show any signs of "Divine Guidance, Force , Life-Spirit , God - call it what you will"; and as they are just normal rocks deposited by natural processes similar to what we also see happening today, it is very reasonable to conclude to that no ghosts were involved.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That sounds a little religious to me.

Does it not surprise you that all the circumstances to create life just happened to be perfect?

Perhaps it sounds religious to you. But there is no trace of religion in my statement. Despite my religious preference.

In what sense are they perfect?

Since we don't know precisely where or when, on our planet, life began the first time, it's actually impossible for you to declare they were perfect. You don't know what they were, do you? It's just a facetious wish fulfillment by you.

'Perfection' does not exist, btw.