• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific advances in abiogenesis

ecco

Veteran Member
In science, abiogenesis is treated like something distinct from evolution, instead of part one of the same continuing process. I look at these two aspects, abiogenesis and evolution, as part of the same thing.

Yes and no. Scientists separate the two just as mathematicians separate geometry from calculus. They are different branches of study and specialty. Brain surgeons aren't usually qualified to do heart transplants.


What I am saying is, any good theory of abiogenesis, needs to make provisions for consciousness down the line, since consciousness eventually appears from this initial beginning.

No, actually you don't. Abiogenesis didn't make provisions for the ability to see light. Abiogenesis didn't make provisions for anything.

The only thing a "good theory of abiogenesis" needs to do is to fill the gap between atoms combining to become molecules and molecular chains self replicating.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Recent evidence suggests that mechanisms other than random mutation and natural selection could play an important role in evolution - it is now apparent that horizontal gene transfer is much more widespread than previously thought. There are also many instances of genes detected in species that have no known current use for them. It is claimed that other aspects of evolution which present problems for neo-Darwinism are more easily explained by cosmic ancestry or panspermia, such as life's rapid start on Earth.

Reference: Ulrich Technau et al., "Maintenance of ancestral complexity and non-metazoan genes in two basal cnidarians" [abstract], doi:10.1016/j.tig.2005.09.007, p 633-639 v 21, Trend in Genetics, December 2005

aible, F.; Tessmar-Raible, K.; Osoegawa, K.; Wincker, P.; Jubin, C.; Balavoine, G.; Ferrier, D.; Benes, V.; De Jong, P.; Weissenbach, J.; Bork, P.; Arendt, D. (Nov 2005). "Vertebrate-type intron-rich genes in the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii ". Science. 310(5752): 1325–1326. Bibcode:2005Sci...310.1325R. doi:10.1126/science.1119089. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 16311335.

Arne Kusserow et al., "Unexpected complexity of the Wnt gene family in a sea anemone", doi:10.1038/nature03158, p 156-160 v 433, Nature, 13 Jan 2005

None of these references support your assertions. Your seeing unresolved problems, arguing from ignorance,' and some apparent relationships in genetics to over reach beyond reason to justify an outragious improbable conclusion without evidence.
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Sure. Lots of people believe in all sorts of versions of "intelligent causation".


What I always wonder is, how would we be able to differentiate between life that arose via natural means and life that arose via "intelligent causation"?

Or, what if intelligence being a natural phenomenon, how would we recognize it and not just totally miss completely what it is?

You would have to define intelligence clearly. Reason, and choice would be apart of it. Also its limiting factors.

Its elusive. I couldnt possibly probe inside somebody's thought world, and detect what they are thinking at any given moment.

Outward appearance would be an indicator perhaps. But most of intelligence would not readily appear to the senses.

Perhaps even there are laws of intelligence, and does it even have to be alive to be intelligent.

I do not think, and i could be wrong, that detecting intelligence is a scientific capability.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sure. Lots of people believe in all sorts of versions of "intelligent causation".


What I always wonder is, how would we be able to differentiate between life that arose via natural means and life that arose via "intelligent causation"?

This is the question Intelligent Design Creationist fail to answer. There is no definitive way to falsify Intelligent Design by scientific methods. The classic approach fro the Creationist perspective is to assert that science does not have an explanation for X, such as a specific complexity in life, or a missing link, therefore it must be an Intelligent Design source. Some say could be Aliens, others say it only can be God. When science provides a natural explanation for X the Creationist moves on to another supposed 'unknown.'.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
This is the question Intelligent Design Creationist fail to answer. There is no definitive way to falsify Intelligent Design by scientific. The classic approach fro the Creationist perspective is to assert that science does not have the an explanation for X, such as s complexity in life, or a missing link, therefore it must be an Intelligent Design source. Some say could be Aliens, others say it only can be God. When science provides a natural explanation for X the Creationist moves on to another supposed 'unknown.'.
Yes. There is no way to come up with objective criteria for designed, as opposed to naturally produced, structures or processes. The only way IDers can try to do this is either, as you say, by claiming a natural process is "impossible" and that by default if it is naturally impossible then God must have done it (in other words the God of the Gaps), or by claiming to detect design Paley-style, by comparison with human design. Both approaches are obviously fatally flawed.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I have no problem with study of abiogenesis at all. I am a chemist.
Synthesis of RNA and then all bodily chemicals will not lead to sentient life, since sentience is property of the subject (you) and not property of body chemicals or the whole body or any part thereof. This is empirically seen in dead bodies. All chemicals and all organs existing, a life-less body does not say "I exist". So, the axiom that life is organisation of chemicals is wrong. We do not know what life is.

For someone who supposedly to be a chemist, it seemed surprising that you are struggling with the concept of chemistry and with the basic understanding of how researches are carried out.

From what I see, shunydragon have repeatedly asked some questions on chemistry, more specifically on biochem, and yet you repeatedly deflect his questions, and seemed to focus more on philosophy of consciousness, sentience and intelligence, not on the scientific research on abiogenesis, which have nothing to do with sentience and consciousness and intelligence.

And you seemed to focus more on headlines of articles you have quoted, but not on any actual researches being done.

If you are truly a chemist, then you would know that something like the researching on the origin of life on Earth, scientists would focus on something small, like , eg DNA, RNA, etc, and LIKE amino acids, eg proteins, as some of the building block for life.

How to replicate these with inorganic elements and molecules, are just the starting point of understanding abiogenesis.

You want scientists to just jump straight in and creating a sentient life from scratch, tells me in volumes, that you don’t have inkling on how researches are carried out.

Others, here, I am quite sure, have already and repeatedly informed you that consciousness were later in evolutionary development, that are not the focus of abiogenesis, and yet you continually ignored this factor.

And that, plus your evasiveness in answering shunydragon’s questions on the science of abiogenesis, and your focus on philosophy, make me wonder about your qualifications and credentials as a chemist.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
This is the question Intelligent Design Creationist fail to answer. There is no definitive way to falsify Intelligent Design by scientific methods. The classic approach fro the Creationist perspective is to assert that science does not have the an explanation for X, such as s complexity in life, or a missing link, therefore it must be an Intelligent Design source. Some say could be Aliens, others say it only can be God. When science provides a natural explanation for X the Creationist moves on to another supposed 'unknown.'.
It is terrible logic.

It is stupid and it is dishonest with the tactics that creationists employed. Unfortunately, it is tactics frequently used here, by most creationists.

They make fools of themselves, by citing sources, because of some articles’ headlines, but not on the actual researches that they often selectively ignored.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes. There is no way to come up with objective criteria for designed, as opposed to naturally produced, structures or processes. The only way IDers can try to do this is either, as you say, by claiming a natural process is "impossible" and that by default if it is naturally impossible then God must have done it (in other words the God of the Gaps), or by claiming to detect design Paley-style, by comparison with human design. Both approaches are obviously fatally flawed.

The bottom line in science and Methodological Naturalism is you cannot falsify the negative.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Abiogenesis is appearing in a number of threads off topic There were many negative views of abiogensis. This is the inspiration for this thread.

This version actually proposes the 'warm pond' hypothesis,' but it could have taken place in several different environments.

First reference:

LIFE'S FIRST SPARK RE-CREATED IN THE LABORATORY


rna.jpg


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland's team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth's primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone."

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland's team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated."

This is interesting stuff. Aren't viruses based on RNA instead of DNA and they use the DNA within a host cell to reproduce, or something to that effect?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I myself have always been more interested on the rise of consciousness. I feel like it's been a while since someone first made life comparable to how it may have started. But for consciousness - no answers.
When last I was looking at what we know about consciousness, the >Global Workspace< hypothesis, was comfortably leading the pack.

And although >this article< is from 2011, it's the most detailed account (at science news level) I could find on what we know about how anesthesia causes unconsciousness.

The interesting questions will come when we understand the brain's mechanisms that create consciousness ─ that is, we know with sufficient precision the difference between a conscious and a non-conscious brain state. That will allow the investigation of whether we could make conscious machines.
Consciousness isn't the topic of this thread, but feel free to start your own.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is interesting stuff. Aren't viruses based on RNA instead of DNA and they use the DNA within a host cell to reproduce, or something to that effect?

Yes many but not all viruses are single stranded ma RNA viruses. What is important here is that there are RNA microbes, and not that other microbes evolved from viruses.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Interesting picture. Looks like you should have read the assembly instructions before you put it together. :D:D:D
Well thats indeed a problem that science confronts. Its assembly requires reverse engineering but if what is being reverse engineered is larger than the capacity to reverse engineer it, then all kinds of goofy conclusuons arrise.

When we talk about nature its singular and very very large bigger than science. But some in science like to play make believe that science is bigger than nature. Those indivuduals are mediocre scientists at best and they make up the majority and are normal. I think drones is an appropriate moniker.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Or, what if intelligence being a natural phenomenon, how would we recognize it and not just totally miss completely what it is?

You would have to define intelligence clearly. Reason, and choice would be apart of it. Also its limiting factors.

Its elusive. I couldnt possibly probe inside somebody's thought world, and detect what they are thinking at any given moment.

Outward appearance would be an indicator perhaps. But most of intelligence would not readily appear to the senses.

Perhaps even there are laws of intelligence, and does it even have to be alive to be intelligent.

I do not think, and i could be wrong, that detecting intelligence is a scientific capability.
That's kind of my point. If there's no way to objectively differentiate between things that were "created by intelligence" and things that came about without any "intelligence", then the issue is meaningless.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well thats indeed a problem that science confronts. Its assembly requires reverse engineering but if what is being reverse engineered is larger than the capacity to reverse engineer it, then all kinds of goofy conclusuons arrise.

When we talk about nature its singular and very very large bigger than science. But some in science like to play make believe that science is bigger than nature. Those indivuduals are mediocre scientists at best and they make up the majority and are normal. I think drones is an appropriate moniker.

Yes, nature is huge beyond human imagination and science, but in this thread we are dealing with very specific processes, mechanisms, physical environments in the history of the earth and the specific chemistry involved. Mediocrity of any given scientist or group of scientists, is not an issue, because we are dealing with self-correcting capacity of hundreds of universities, and tens of thousands of scientists, and their peer reviewed literature over the recent history of the science of abiogenesis. Yes, bad research and incompetence has been uncovered over time by the severe redundancy of the research involved in many different universities.

In this thread I will deal with specific mechanisms, and processes of abiogenesis.in an orderly manner with multiple sources. The first two are the natural chemical evolution of RNA, and organic phosphates absolutely necessary in the chemical evolution that results in the first microbial life forms capable of self-replication. The chemical evolution of organic phosphates is absolutely critical in making the first microbial life forms self-sustaining, and not dependent on external energy resources.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I am surprised, I must say. I asked because your posts do not seem to show much grounding in scientific thinking. I can only imagine you are motivated by a religious agenda and have decided to set your training aside. (I realise you may be offended by my presumption you were not a physical science graduate, but this is the internet and I was once strung along by someone who claimed to be a working scientist but who eventually turned out to be the person who cleaned the equipment in a lab somewhere. :D )

Science bereft of greater philosophical understanding is blind, imo. I do not have to prove to you and shunya my credentials. You two are not actual scientists but you are carried away by so-called scientific journalism.

RNA is not a spark of life. Whatever you may say, you cannot create a single living cell. The awareness component is the missing link. You ae assuming that some arrangement of chemicals and physical forms make living things aware. This is a religious like thinking, or at best an assumption.

OTOH, it is possible to create in laboratory a black hole, since there is no subjective part that is unknown.

Scientists Close In on Creating Black Hole in Lab

You are simply not well read and do not understand the greater philosophical implication of what I am saying. But it is easy for likes of you to be insulting of anyone who has a different view.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of those two examples, the general point is it is a silly creationist myth to maintain that for a science theory to be sound one has to be able to replicate the phenomenon artificially in the laboratory. I am really quite shocked that somebody with a hard science degree could make a mistake like this, especially since as a geochemist you are presumably used to making observations in the field and not in a lab.

What? My point is that we do not know what exactly life is. Do you know your self? What makes you aware and living?

Under such situation, to claim "Spark of life created in laboratory" is journalistic. RNA is not life.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I'm trying to make sense out of this and failing. Life-forms (like bacteria) are, by definition, alive. They have the property of life.

And yes, we know that life is a complex collection of interconnected chemical reactions that can maintain homeostasis, grow, and reproduce.

You, I think, know what I mean by form/structure. We have discussed this before. How homeostasis is maintained in a human body is not known. We can claim or assume that interconnected chemical reactions do it. But I have said. thousand times that we do not know why such interconnected chemical reactions stop at death.

A dead body, wherein all forms and structures exist, exhibit no life and consciousness. So, to assume that RNA is the spark of life is simply an assumption.

I knew that pointing out this simple thing will attract aggressive attacks, from those who do not question their premises.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The foundation for consciousness is a much more complex situation than that for abiogenesis and there is no reason to suspect that ordinary evolutionary biology is insufficient for it.

Also, there is no reason to assume that evolutionary biology is sufficient to explain consciousness. Contrariwise, if intelligence evolved through mechanism then it is likely to be bound and not free to for objective evaluation of propositions.
 
Last edited:
Top