Abiogenesis

Subduction Zone said:

One does not need to reproduce events to have evidence for an event. Why would you think that? Let's say a bomb blew up in the middle of your city. Would you need to blow up another one to find evidence of the first event?

Click to expand...

Bomb? What are you talking about?

Jimmy said:

Theres much to be learned

Click to expand...

I will accept that. But that does not indicate at all that it did not happen.

What would indicate that it may not have happened is if someone else came up with a testable model that also worked, or worked even better, or was more strongly supported by evidence.

Jimmy said:

Bomb? What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

In the post that I responded to you indicated that you did not understand the concept of evidence. Do you think that events need to be reproducible in the sciences?

Subduction Zone said:

I will accept that. But that does not indicate at all that it did not happen.

What would indicate that it may not have happened is if someone else came up with a testable model that also worked, or worked even better, or was more strongly supported by evidence.

Click to expand...

Sure anyone can believe it happened if they choose. I don’t personally believe the earth is very old in reality.

Jimmy said:

Sure anyone can believe it happened if they choose. I don’t personally believe the earth is very old in reality.

Click to expand...

Some beliefs are justified, some are not. You could also believe that the Tooth Fairy was real. If you cannot support your belief it is not a good sign if others can. We know that the Earth is billions of years old. Why not try to learn how we know that?

Subduction Zone said:

In the post that I responded to you indicated that you did not understand the concept of evidence. Do you think that events need to be reproducible in the sciences?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Some beliefs are justified, some are not. You could also believe that the Tooth Fairy was real. If you cannot support your belief it is not a good sign if others can. We know that the Earth is billions of years old. Why not try to learn how we know that?

Click to expand...

I’ve heard support your belief a million times here. Not going there.

oh i do know how “we know that”

you and I differ is all

Jimmy said:

I’ve heard support your belief a million times here. Not going there.

oh i do know how “we know that”

Click to expand...

I don't have "belief" I have knowledge. There is no reason that you cannot learn. It is not as if knowledge was proprietary.

Jimmy said:

I’ve heard support your belief a million times here. Not going there.

oh i do know how “we know that”

you and I differ is all

Click to expand...

So you would rather call your God a liar. Okay. Fine with me. If there is a God he will not be happy with that.

Subduction Zone said:

So you would rather call your God a liar. Okay. Fine with me. If there is a God he will not be happy with that.

Click to expand...

Alright alright bro
Take care now

If a human says I am learning. Can't you look at natural bodies and accept their presence....or does your human ego thought of man dominion over all things claim I must attack and try to change nature?

I wondered as a human was human science truly a rational thinker when science says human science choices has caused life to arrive again near its destruction.

Says the information as science then science argues against science.

Natural however is not your argument. Your ego is so huge you don't even realise you human scientist did not invent the presence of creation.

Your thin king claim I invented the light constant persuaded you to say the universal light constant will always exist.

Earth only owns a natural gas burning light constant.

Ask a rational human question. What would you human theory if no other presence existed for a theist?

Your claim is I theoried how our natural creation existed.

Yet the cosmic theory is a moment of change thought about as one only condition the moment of theistic belief. The subject only.

If a human claims I can think back in time to before.... they state change and blasting. Aren't you in fact theorising the want of it by thinking to own the causes personally. As if it yet had not occurred but you think you could cause it!

By knowing. Isn't that why you theory,?

As you claim you know your owned motivation to theory how and why.

Your claim is to invent. Which means to cause.

Your claim is to copy what you Idealise.

Your claim is to gain it not by natural means but with machine use.

Yet the machine never first existed.

Your theist theme a UFO is a machine is falsified science advice.

Subduction Zone said:

What makes you think that the abiogenesis cannot be validated? And it is still in the hypothetical stage, though there is quite a bit of evidence for it. It is the leading explanation right now. Mainly because it is well supported by evidence and there is none for any other model, at least that I know of.

And your timing is a bit off. Multicellular organisms first appeared about 1.56 billion years ago or perhaps even a little earlier:

Ancient origins of multicellular life - Nature

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting what the article says.

The link from Nature, first sentence, says “Large, multicellular life forms may have appeared on Earth one billion years earlier than was previously thought.”

Did you miss that, maybe? Stated as a possibility.

You posted it as a fact.

shunyadragon said:

The present evidence indicates that life most likely began in gas vent caverns around the spreading zones of the earth during the beginnings of continental drift. These environments can be replecated today and exist along the rift spreading zones under the oceans. A question some ask is why does not abiogenesis take place today? The answer is the competition is to great with current life, and could not compete.

I believe in the near future science will work out how life could take place and relicate3 in a lab.

Click to expand...

Do you think it's possible that abiogenesis is happening all the time but the life forms (not sure what the correct description would be) is gobbled up by already existing life forms? I hope I worded that so it's an understandable question.

Hockeycowboy said:

You are misrepresenting what the article says.

The link from Nature, first sentence, says “Large, multicellular life forms may have appeared on Earth one billion years earlier than was previously thought.”

Did you miss that, maybe? Stated as a possibility.

You posted it as a fact.

Click to expand...

LOL! Please learn how to read journal articles.

John53 said:

Do you think it's possible that abiogenesis is happening all the time but the life forms (not sure what the correct description would be) is gobbled up by already existing life forms? I hope I worded that so it's an understandable question.

Click to expand...

What probably happens today is that long before a protocell approaches anything close to what would be called life it gets gobbled up. So you are not far from being correct.

Jimmy said:

...we’ll never be able to replicate that to validate the theory of abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I stopped reading here.

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to loan me whatever divination tool you're using when you're not using it to advise us on what is possible in the future.

Jimmy said:

It still tells me nothing about how non living matter evolved into Single celled organisms over 1 billion years. It gives a grain of sand of information in a bucket that needs to filled but obviously will never be is all I was saying.

Click to expand...

The key to abiogenesis is water. Nothing at any level of life will work without water. No other solvent can be substituted. Water drove the natural selection process at the nanoscale, since all that was selected needs water to work.

One important water based property needed to assemble all the parts, to form the first stages of life is the water-oil affect. If we mix water and oil and shake we can form an emulsion. If we allow this to settle the water and oil will separate into two distinct layers; order from disorder. Water can segregate and form order from organic chaos. The water-oil affect applies to all the organics of life to various degrees and allows the cells to form compartments and gradients. This water-oil affect also forms surface tension or energy on organic surfaces needed for catalysis. No other solvent can do the same things to organics.

Although left out in most biology textbooks; obsolete biology traditions, the DNA double helix actually contains a double helix of water that lies within the major and minor grooves. The base pairs all have positions that support the hydrogen bonded double helix of water. Without this water DNA does not work.

Jimmy said:

So obviously the temperature of earth after formation for 1 billion yrs was perfect for life to arise. That sucks we’ll never be able to replicate that to validate the theory of abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the word "perfect" in that context. There will be a window based on a whole range of relevant factors could combine to make the development of live possible. Temperature (local, regional and global) would be just one (or three) of them.

Jimmy said:

this seems weird. One would think it would’ve taken a shorter time for single celled organisms to become multicellular organisms given that it only took 1 billion years for non living matter to evolve into living single celled organisms.

Click to expand...

I don't see the logic there. You're talking about two entirely different complex biological processes so I don't think it is valid to assume there should be any relationship between the time periods over which they occurred and there will be all sorts of independent factors that will have impacted and influenced each of them.

It's also worth noting that we're working on an infinitely tiny subset of the potential evidence for such distant events so the sequence of events and timing of when different things occurred isn't going to be entirely clear (as per the link in post two).

Subduction Zone said:

What makes you think that the abiogenesis cannot be validated? And it is still in the hypothetical stage, though there is quite a bit of evidence for it. It is the leading explanation right now. Mainly because it is well supported by evidence and there is none for any other model, at least that I know of.

And your timing is a bit off. Multicellular organisms first appeared about 1.56 billion years ago or perhaps even a little earlier:

Ancient origins of multicellular life - Nature

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis can only theorise about the chemistry of life.

John53 said:

Do you think it's possible that abiogenesis is happening all the time but the life forms (not sure what the correct description would be) is gobbled up by already existing life forms? I hope I worded that so it's an understandable question.

Click to expand...

HonestJoe said:

I wouldn't use the word "perfect" in that context. There will be a window based on a whole range of relevant factors could combine to make the development of live possible. Temperature (local, regional and global) would be just one (or three) of them.

I don't see the logic there. You're talking about two entirely different complex biological processes so I don't think it is valid to assume there should be any relationship between the time periods over which they occurred and there will be all sorts of independent factors that will have impacted and influenced each of them.

It's also worth noting that we're working on an infinitely tiny subset of the potential evidence for such distant events so the sequence of events and timing of when different things occurred isn't going to be entirely clear (as per the link in post two).

Click to expand...

The prebiotic product are consumed by existing microorganisms before any abiogenesis can take place in the world even shortly after abiogenesis took place, and the world was populated by evolved generations of microorganisms. This actually takes place in the evolution of life through Natural Selection over time. The beginning of the proliferation of the first microorganisms that dominated the world at the time is the most dramatic after abiogenesis took place.

Both abiogenesis and evolution are environmentally driven as the world or regional environments change life evolves or goes extinct in response to the changes in the environment. The major events that change the environments of the world mark the radical extinction and evolutionary change.

Brian2 said:

Abiogenesis can only theorise about the chemistry of life.

Click to expand...

All science theorizes, even the science that theorized how airplanes fly. Methodological Naturalism is the universal method of science, and the objective verifiable Evidence is the basis of the predictability in our physical existence for falsifying theories and hypothesis. Try an avoid foolish layman uses of theory based on a religious agenda when discussing how theories and hypothesis works uniformly and predictably in ALL of science including abiogenesis and evolution.