• 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!

What do you think about abiogenesis?

Cooky

Veteran Member
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
If it occured once, could it occur twice, and if it could, are there natural or universal laws involved?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?
Currently the best explanation for the beginning of life. Is it correct? Maybe.

I don't know a better explanation, it'll do me for now. But I'm open to alternative explanations that don't involve magic.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Currently the best explanation for the beginning of life. Is it correct? Maybe.

I don't know a better explanation, it'll do me for now. But I'm open to alternative explanations that don't involve magic.

I think life began in the ocean, where warm underwater guysers created an environment suitable for life to begin.

...I think it's why we consume salt and water -the only two non organic nutrients we need to eat.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
A very straightforward explanation of the chemistry of inevitable replication.

In relation to the kind of issues discussed on RF...abiogenesis has no demonstrable link to awareness. That conflation, under the umbrella of ‘emergent properties’, is often the atheist ‘god of the gaps’.
I have no idea of the origin, if any, of awareness.

I get both annoyed and amused when I hear the process being associated with ‘survival’, as though that is somehow an intention of replicating molecules, which merely by dint of replication are called ‘life’.

To claim replication to be any kind of volition, or ‘survival urge’, a claim often embedded in statements made by the insufficiently educated , is closet theism.

I’m not attacking atheists. I eschew belief. This is just my two cents worth about a recurring argument, and how the language used is often indicative of a kind of mysticism swept under the materialist rug.

Re atheism vs theism....I generally don’t want to go there with anyone unfamiliar with ignosticism . It’s a pointless waste of time.

I know the thread is intended for a discussion of abiogenesis, not theology, but it is almost bound to go there, and I think that it is important for both atheists and theists to realise that abiogenesis is not an argument favouring either.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
What do you think about abiogenesis?

With just the forces known to current science, I hold complex life to be a longshot of the greatest proportion. I believe the involvement of conscious intent and intelligence to be the more reasonable position. And from more than my own reasoning I believe this comes from sources that I believe see beyond the physical-only level of reality as well.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?
I think it's still a theory that has not been verified. The origin of life on Earth, or anywhere, is still a significant mystery. And even if we understood the mechanics (how), that still does not explain the motive (why).
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?
Gosh there are so many strands to it that I can't give a clear answer to this.

I loved the suggestion that the handedness in biochemistry could be attributed to different rates of adsorption on certain handed mineral crystals. I also love the finding that proteins may be assembled without needing to go via the free amino acids. I am also intrigued that the most recent idea seems to disfavour the hot, deep-sea vents that were previously in vogue, in favour of something a lot more like Darwin's musings about some warm little pond. And I was very intrigued by Jeremy England's thermodynamic ideas, suggesting that life can be expected to arise as a consequence of its ability to increase entropy more rapidly than inorganic processes.

As for whether I support a membrane first or metabolism first or replication first hypothesis, I am not in any position to judge.

But I'm not sure what you mean by whether abiogenesis "existed" in the distant past. The study of it is fairly new, less than a century old. But as for the process itself, biochemical and fossil evidence suggests life began about 3.5bn years ago. It would probably be difficult for a second independent abiogenesis process to start, later, because the nutrients and chemicals needed would tend to get taken up by whatever life already existed.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?

I don't think abiogenesis had any beginning. The universe has got to be eternal hard as it is to fathom.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?
Possible and of course always limited as theories are.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?

"Cosmic ancestry holds that life is neither the product of supernatural creation, nor is it spontaneously generated through abiogenesis, but that it has existed in the universe prior to Earth. Cosmic ancestry posits that the evolutionary progression from simpler to more complex organisms utilizes preexisting genetic information and does not compose this information as it occurs.

According to this proposition, higher life forms, including intelligent life, descend ultimately from preexisting life which was at least as advanced as the descendants. The genetic programs for the evolution of such higher forms may have been delivered to biospheres, such as the Earth's, within viruses or bacteria in the same manner as proposed by other versions of panspermia. The genetic programs may then be installed by known gene transfermechanisms. Also, according to cosmic ancestry, life initiates Gaian processes that may environmentally alter biospheres."

Arguments for the possible astral origin of life are summarised in theoretical panspermia. 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.

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 200

Raible, 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

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 , punctuated equilibrium and convergent evolution.

The primary justification for the hypothesis is claimed to be the lack of direct evidence that any natural process on Earth can cause life to originate from non-living matter, or compose genetic programs for new evolutionary features. Evidence for speciation, adaptation, variation, and optimization within narrow ranges via natural selection is not disputed.

Bennett, C.L.; Larson, L.; Weiland, J.L.; Jarosk, N.; Hinshaw, N.; Odegard, N.; Smith, K.M.; Hill, R.S.; Gold, B.; Halpern, M.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M.R.; Page, L.; Spergel, D.N.; Wollack, E.; Dunkley, J.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S.S.; Tucker, G.S.; Wright, E.L. (December 20, 2012). "Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results". 1212: 5225. arXiv:1212.5225. Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
There's a mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s)with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing

https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_037_as_a_Base_of_Biological_CodingComputing

The human genome has 145 "alien" genes that can't be linked to any of our distant past human ancestors; these genes are in our genome from the process of horizontal gene transfer. These 145 "alien" genes, which nobody inherited from any distant past terrestrial ancestor, might have been the result of genetic engineering by advanced extraterrestrial intelligence or from a post human futuristic civilization.

Reference:

Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes
Genome Biology201516:50
Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes
  • Received: 25 September 2014
  • Accepted: 4 February 2015
  • Published: 13 March 2015
Cosmic ancestry theory can often explain the transitional evolutionary changes between species that aren't well-explained by traditional Darwinian evolution.

Viruses can insert new genes, which have never before encountered by a species, to become part of the species' genome. These transferred genes are a vital part evolution. According to Cosmic Ancestry, the horizontal transfer of genes by viruses and other means is essential for evolutionary progress.

Three New Human Genes
and De Novo Genes in General | What'sNEW

Entirely novel human-specific protein-coding genes originating from ancestrally noncoding sequences have been reported by two geneticists at the University of Dublin

Reference:

David G. Knowles and Aoife McLysaght, "Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes" [abstract], doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109, Genome Research, online 2 Sep 2009.
Discovery of novel genes..., by EurekAlert!, 1 Sep 2009.
Genes That Make Us Human, by Elizabeth Pennisi, ScienceNOW, 1 Sep 2009.
Three human genes evolved from junk, by Michael Le Page, NewScientist, 3 Sep 2009.
Which Genes Make Us Human? by Alan Boyle, MSNBC, 3 Sep 2009.

."Analyzing available data, they identified genes that are expressed in the human species but not in chimps. They then looked for simiar sequences in other primates, finding three. The chimp and macaque (unexpressed) sequences are nearly identical to the human one, but are interrupted by frameshifting insertions and stop codons.
Although the three human genes are known to be expressed from several lines of evidence, their functions are not definitively characterized. However one, chronic lymphocytic leukemia upregulated gene 1 (CLLU1), appears to have a role in that human disease. Its sequence among humans, compared to the matching one in chimps and macaques, is illustrated below.

mail


"Multiple sequence alignment of the gene sequence of the human gene CLLU1 and similar nucleotide sequences from the syntenic location in chimp and macaque. The start codon is located immediately following the first alignment gap, which was inserted for clarity. Stop codons are indicated by red boxes. The sequenced peptide identified from this locus is indicated in orange. The critical mutation that allows the production of a protein is the deletion of an A nucleotide, which is present in both chimp and macaque (indicated by an arrow). This causes a frameshift in human that results in a much longer ORF capable of producing a 121-amino acids-long protein. Both the chimp and macaque sequences have a stop codon after only 42 potential codons." © Genome Research 2009
CLLU1 is also disabled by a matching point insertion in the gorilla and gibbon, but not orangutan, genomes. The geneticists reason, If the ancestral primate sequence was coding, then we would need to infer that an identical 1-bp insertion occurred in four lineages independently, whereas if we infer the presence of the disabler in the ancestral sequence, then we must infer two independent 1-bp deletions. The inference that the ancestral sequence was noncoding is a more parsimonious explanation of the data, even without considering that the parallel insertion of a specific base into an identical location is probably less likely than the parallel deletion of one base. ...We hypothesize that these genes have originated de novo in the human lineage, since the divergence with chimp from ancestrally noncoding sequence.

Consider the human nucleotide sequence designated CLLU1, 121 codons in length. A codon, three nucleotides, may encode any of 20 amino acids, or a stop. (But this sequence is a gene, an open reading frame with no stops.)
Assume that the protein encoded by this nucleotide sequence needs ~25%, or 30, of its codons exactly right. In other words, only 1 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 30 positions. The chance that 30 random codons will match this sequence in one trial can be estimated as

(1/21)^30 = ~10^-40
Assume that the remaining 91 codons in this sequence may vary widely, encoding any of 10 of life's 20 amino acids, but no stops. In other words, 10 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 91 codon positions. The chance that 91 random codons will satisfy these criteria in one trial is approximately

(10/21)^91 = ~10^-30

Combining these assumptions, the chance that a given sequence of 121 random codons will constitute a working version of this gene is on the order of

10^(-40-30) = 10^-70 ..."

(This method copies Chandra Wickramasinghe's in The Legacy of Fred Hoyle, reviewed 2005.)

Reference: Metazoan Genes Older Than Metazoa?, 25 Oct 1996.

"If a new genetic program arrives by the strong panspermia process, intervening (ancestral) species should possess either nearly identical versions of it ...or nothing similar.."
Reference: New genetic programs in Darwinism and strong panspermia, 7 Apr 2002.
.At least some of the silent DNA is for future use ."]Reference: Why Sexual Reproduction?, first posted May 1996.
"Point mutations and other simple mechanisms can switch existing programs off and on."
Reference: Testing Darwinism versus Cosmic Ancestry, 24 Nov 2002
"This process would ...depend on sophisticated software management that can recognize an installed program."
Reference: Duplication Makes A New Primate Gene, 21 Feb 2005.
"New genetic programs will be continually offered for testing."
Reference: How is it Possible?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I think it's still a theory that has not been verified. The origin of life on Earth, or anywhere, is still a significant mystery. And even if we understood the mechanics (how), that still does not explain the motive (why).
Why does there need to be a why?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It would probably be difficult for a second independent abiogenesis process to start, later, because the nutrients and chemicals needed would tend to get taken up by whatever life already existed.
While conceding that your education and knowledge in this subject greatly exceeds mine, I would respectfully disagree.

All of the existing life cannot use all the chemicals present. I firmly believe that the basic building blocks are still being assembled and combined.

Atoms are still forming molecules. Molecules are still forming into chains. And so on right up to whatever it is we decide is the "lowest form of life" and beyond.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
While conceding that your education and knowledge in this subject greatly exceeds mine, I would respectfully disagree.

All of the existing life cannot use all the chemicals present. I firmly believe that the basic building blocks are still being assembled and combined.

Atoms are still forming molecules. Molecules are still forming into chains. And so on right up to whatever it is we decide is the "lowest form of life" and beyond.
If that were happening, it would presumably have happened throughout history. I would have thought that would lead to a diversity in biochemistry among organisms, depending on which of the many origins they are descended from. Whereas in fact we see that the biochemistry of life has a great number of features in common. I am not expert in this field but I have yet to see any construction of the tree of life that shows multiple independent origins. If there have been multiple origins, it seems the evidence suggests only one "family" has survived to the present day.

But I admit my argument is not watertight. I'd be interested to see if any of our resident experts (we do have some, I think) have a view on this.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
"Cosmic ancestry holds that life is neither the product of supernatural creation, nor is it spontaneously generated through abiogenesis, but that it has existed in the universe prior to Earth. ... According to this proposition, higher life forms, including intelligent life, descend ultimately from preexisting life which was at least as advanced as the descendants.

The primary justification for the hypothesis is claimed to be the lack of direct evidence that any natural process on Earth can cause life to originate from non-living matter, or compose genetic programs for new evolutionary features.

Whenever I see wording like "is claimed" I immediately become suspicious. It is claimed that aliens have visited the earth and abducted, probed and returned humans. So I think I am being fair when I ask, by whom is it claimed.

Furthermore, you would need to explain what is/was present in other parts of the universe, but not on earth, that allowed life to begin there but not here.

You might also take some time to find out where scientists stand on the question of "what is life".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
If that were happening, it would presumably have happened throughout history. I would have thought that would lead to a diversity in biochemistry among organisms, depending on which of the many origins they are descended from. Whereas in fact we see that the biochemistry of life has a great number of features in common. I am not expert in this field but I have yet to see any construction of the tree of life that shows multiple independent origins. If there have been multiple origins, it seems the evidence suggests only one "family" has survived to the present day.

But I admit my argument is not watertight. I'd be interested to see if any of our resident experts (we do have some, I think) have a view on this.
I don't see that there is any possibility that everything living today sprang from one highly complex amino acid. My feeling is that there were multiple "beginnings". Not multiple in the sense that life started, stopped, started, stopped, started, stopped. But in the sense of many different points of origin over perhaps millions of years.

The concept is similar to the origin of complex atoms. It wasn't just one helium atom that gave rise to all oxygen atoms. There were untold numbers of helium atoms, some of which, eventually, became oxygen atoms. There are still helium atoms becoming oxygen atoms.

Poorly explained but I think you get the gist.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
That's a lot of cut and paste. One has to wonder how much of it you actually understand.

The first paragraph is entirely written word for word originally by me. You will neither find this paragraph on any other website nor written by anybody else. ....;)
 
Top