Abiogenesis

camanintx said:

Do you think there was any life present in the first few minutes after the Big Bang when the universe was composed only of photons?

How about 375,000 years after the Big Bang when atoms begin to form?

How about 1 billion years after the Big Bang when stars began to form?

Click to expand...

I don't know how or when life started, and I would venture the guess that neither do you

I am simply stating that all the life we currently know of evolved from another type of life.
We may have some sensible theories about how life came about, but we don't know for sure.

lunakilo said:

I don't know how or when life started, and I would venture the guess that neither do you

I am simply stating that all the life we currently know of evolved from another type of life.
We may have some sensible theories about how life came about, but we don't know for sure.

Click to expand...

If we know that there was no life when the universe began and there is life now, wouldn't that be considered data that life can come from something that is not life? We can debate what process was involved (abiogensis, creation, etc.) but they would still require life from not life.

lunakilo said:

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

Click to expand...

I think it makes sense. Think of all the inorganic matter in our body for which our life would be impossible without it. Oxygen for instance, regarded as the predominant element in inorganic chemistery, while carbon predominantes in organic chemistery.

In view of the demonstrated relationships of organic and inorganic material, I dont see why this would be so far fetched.

camanintx said:

If we know that there was no life when the universe began and there is life now, wouldn't that be considered data that life can come from something that is not life? We can debate what process was involved (abiogensis, creation, etc.) but they would still require life from not life.

Click to expand...

True.

And I believe that was rusra02's point

Life must have come frome non-life, at some point, but there is no scientific evidence showing HOW it came to be.
You can choose to see that as a lack of knowledge about the how the world works or as a lack of evidence against "God did it".

rusra02 said:

But not without an intelligent source.

Click to expand...

An intelligent source capable of duplicating what occurs in nature under conditions they themselves have some observational control over. Your semantics are getting tiresome.

But if you want to play semantics: created by mortal, finite source
Still no God needed

lunakilo said:

What do you mean "wrong".
Rusra02 is correct in that all the life we know of came from another type of life.

We may speculate that at some point life came out of something that was not life, but where is the data to support that?
I don't know of any.

Click to expand...

Considering that the species we 'know currently' today, are less than 1% of all the life we have traces of as having lived before us, to then imagine that we are the only possible template and must base all our assumptions on ourselves alone, does not really seem wise, does it?

camanintx said:

Do you think there was any life present in the first few minutes after the Big Bang when the universe was composed only of photons?

How about 375,000 years after the Big Bang when atoms begin to form?

How about 1 billion years after the Big Bang when stars began to form?

Click to expand...

Right .. so life started some time during this period..
The point is, however, that is it reasonable to claim that there is no intelligent entity responsible for the whole process?

I would say that it is NOT reasonable .. things don't happen without a reason, particularly something so fantastic & complex.
..and don't so that the first few photons of 'the big-bang' aren't complex .. what is responsible for the course that the universe has taken? Saying 'nature' or 'to sustain life' is no explanation at all!

It certainly is an explanation. It's simply one you don't like.

muhammad_isa said:

Right .. so life started some time during this period..
The point is, however, that is it reasonable to claim that there is no intelligent entity responsible for the whole process?

I would say that it is NOT reasonable .. things don't happen without a reason, particularly something so fantastic & complex.
..and don't so that the first few photons of 'the big-bang' aren't complex .. what is responsible for the course that the universe has taken? Saying 'nature' or 'to sustain life' is no explanation at all!

Click to expand...

Where is the evidence for this intelligent entity?
Because, certainly, you wouldn't be accepting things without evidence, now would you?
Because if you do, I have an invisible dragon I'd like to sell to you...

nnmartin said:

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

Click to expand...

Heathen Hammer said:

None were involved.

Click to expand...

A bold claim... can you prove it?

Anyway, what helped me was learning that there is no theory of abiogenesis, but several competing hypotheses.

Heathen Hammer said:

It certainly is an explanation. It's simply one you don't like.

Click to expand...

Tcccch! It's not a matter of what I like, here..
It's a matter of what makes the most sense. Why does mankind try to find an explanation for every physical phenomenon
ie. propose scientific theories

and then when it comes to the basic question of why 'nature' is the way it is, and the existence of intelligence and life itself, some effectively say that it needs no explanation, or intelligence/consciousness can effectively "come out of nowhere", just evolving for no reason at all!

I don't call that using our intelligence, I think it more likely that people would rather not have an answer to the question for some reason! :grill:
. . . . . . . . . .

The problem is, that if the believers are right about the consequences of indifference (or even hate) to faith, then they will regret it

Anecdote 1:
When I was taking Earth Science in middle school, we got saddled with the WORST student teacher it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. Not only was she incompetent, but totally uninterested in the sciences. (She wanted to teach gym... why they assigned her to an honor's science class, I haven't a clue!)

We were just starting our section on astronomy when she took over the class.* I was annoyed with her from the beginning, as it was painfully obvious that her idea of "preparation" was limited to reading ahead in our textbook. Then we got to redshift/ blueshift.

We read the chapter, and I was baffled. Being more artistic than scientific, I was thinking of the color wheel rather than the electromagnetic spectrum, and any kindergartener knows that red + blue = purple. So, I asked her (trying to be respectful) what it meant if the light was violet. Her answer? "Blue and purple are the same color!" My response to this was less than charitable and does not bear repeating. At any rate, I wrote her off and spent the rest of her tenure doodling and going over my choir notes, convinced that redshift/ blueshift was bunk.

When our normal (much more competent) teacher returned, she asked us what we thought of the gym coach to be. I went OFF. I ranted about her incompetence for a good 10 minutes, closing with the above story. By the time I was done, Mrs. Garcia had tears rolling down her face and could barely stand for laughing so hard. I was a bit surprised by this, but waited for her to get herself together.

Still chuckling, she finally got enough control to gasp: "Spectrum, NOT WHEEL!" and it clicked into place. I got it, I accepted it, and I learned an even more valuable truth: in all fields, the difference between gross, ignorant misinformation and clear, immediate acceptance is dependent on quality of explanation.

* For those who don't know, student teachers are in the last stage of certification. They are assigned to observe a class, then the regular instructor takes 2 weeks off while the student runs the classroom.

Anecdote 2:
Many years later, I was conflicted over abiogenesis. I wanted to believe it, it appealed to me aesthetically, instinctively, AND theologically. But the explanations I was being given made no sense. Sure, they might be internally sound, but I'd been given at least 7 totally different and conflicting "theories."

So I took myself to an atheist site which shall remain nameless, explained my misgivings, relayed Anecdote 1, and asked if anyone could point out 'spectrum, not wheel.' After some 70 pages of getting flamed by people whose arrogance outstripped their reading comprehension, someone finally told me that we're still figuring out the mechanisms. That the various 'theories' I'd heard were in fact hypotheses, and no one knew which, was correct, if any. I gave him a cookie and left content.

So, defenders of abiogenesis:
1) Don't overstate your knowledge.
2) Do try to understand the other side's objection(s).
3) If you don't know _____, admit it! Or bow out in silence. Don't act like the student teacher!

Questioners:
Bear in mind you may just be looking at the puzzle from the wrong angle.

Storm said:

Anyway, what helped me was learning that there is no theory of abiogenesis, but several competing hypotheses.

Click to expand...

This is indeed true.
None of which postulate divine intervention though...

jarofthoughts said:

This is indeed true.
None of which postulate divine intervention though...

Click to expand...

Of course not. Divine intervention is outside the scope of science; when ANY such opinion is offered (for or against) it may - MUST - be dismissed out of hand as mere bias.

An interesting (my underlining) find at dictionary.com.....

Abiogenesis
noun Biology
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

muhammad_isa said:

Right .. so life started some time during this period..
The point is, however, that is it reasonable to claim that there is no intelligent entity responsible for the whole process?

I would say that it is NOT reasonable .. things don't happen without a reason, particularly something so fantastic & complex.
..and don't so that the first few photons of 'the big-bang' aren't complex .. what is responsible for the course that the universe has taken?

Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity.

muhammad_isa said:

Saying 'nature' or 'to sustain life' is no explanation at all!

Click to expand...

Neither is saying "God did it".

lunakilo said:

True.

And I believe that was rusra02's point

Life must have come frome non-life, at some point, but there is no scientific evidence showing HOW it came to be.
You can choose to see that as a lack of knowledge about the how the world works or as a lack of evidence against "God did it".

Click to expand...

Eventually, one must arrive at the Source of life. As Psalm 36:9 explains: "For with you [God] is the source of life. By light from you we can see light." As for God, like numbers, space, and time, God is infinite, without beginning nor end. (Psalm 90:2) Otherwise, the promise of everlasting life would be without merit. (Titus 1:2)
Granted, we cannot fully grasp infinity, yet we must admit it's existence. So it should not be unduly difficult for us to acknowledge God's claim of eternal existence. (Psalm 10:16)

​

​

muhammad_isa said:

The problem is, that if the believers are right about the consequences of indifference (or even hate) to faith, then they will regret it

Click to expand...

Empty threats are no more impressive than your argument from incredulity.

Are you perhaps setting up for a Pascal's Wager?
It is not impressive either.

Storm said:

So, defenders of abiogenesis:
1) Don't overstate your knowledge.
2) Do try to understand the other side's objection(s).
3) If you don't know _____, admit it! Or bow out in silence. Don't act like the student teacher!

Questioners:
Bear in mind you may just be looking at the puzzle from the wrong angle.

Click to expand...

It's true that the theories of abiogenesis are more like hypotheses, but not knowing the exact mechanism or sequence of events doesn't discount that it most likely happened. My guess is that life tried to get started several different ways, but somewhere along the way one line out-competed the others and become the dominant form of proto-life, eventually becoming the descendent line of all (modern) life.

That said, there are some very well founded ideas and processes in abiogenesis, but since we're reconstructing a historical event that happened some 4 billion years ago with no direct evidence for exactly what happened as far as I know, we may never know the exact process that our abiotic ancestors underwent to become life - even if we successfully create life in the lab there is no guarantee that that is how life on Earth got started.

RedOne77 said:

It's true that the theories of abiogenesis are more like hypotheses, but not knowing the exact mechanism or sequence of events doesn't discount that it most likely happened. My guess is that life tried to get started several different ways, but somewhere along the way one line out-competed the others and become the dominant form of proto-life, eventually becoming the descendent line of all (modern) life.

That said, there are some very well founded ideas and processes in abiogenesis, but since we're reconstructing a historical event that happened some 4 billion years ago with no direct evidence for exactly what happened as far as I know, we may never know the exact process that our abiotic ancestors underwent to become life - even if we successfully create life in the lab there is no guarantee that that is how life on Earth got started.

Click to expand...

Of course. My point is that far too many defenders present said hypotheses as full theories, which is counterproductive.