• 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!

New discoveries and research in abiogenesis

Yazata

Active Member
Maybe because He's not necessary in every single thing that happens. Some things just happen on their own, from natural causes.

How could one possibly demonstrate the truth of those propositions? They look like expressions of a particular atheistic kind of metaphysical faith to me.

Why are some people so wedded to magic?

What do they say about people in glass houses throwing stones?

Metaphysical naturalism seems to accept the reality of what are often called "laws of nature". So, what explanation do they have? What accounts for them? How do mere humans even know about "laws of nature" in the first place? (The problem of induction arises there.)

Remember that "laws of nature" is an ancient idea that long predates science. The idea seems to have originated in the edicts of ancient kings, who simply spoke their kingdom's laws into existence. God was imagined as the entire universe's super-mighty king. More recently, belief in God has faded away but the idea of laws of nature has survived the disappearance of the law-giver, like the Cheshire cat's grin in Alice.

More broadly, it's just assumed that nature conforms to logic and to reason. Presumably every event in the physical universe conforms to logic, reason and to natural law. That seems to be a fundamental article of faith in metaphysical naturalism. But why? What explains it? What justifies all the confidence?

Shunyadragon at least has the beginnings of a (rather ID-style) explanation, proposing that these things were built by God into creation at its origin. (Resulting in with a rather "deistic" account where God initially set reality in motion and then stopped being involved with it.)

I don't think that approach works very successfully, because it isn't really informative. Instead of reducing the unknown to the known, it just seeks to account for a smaller unknown by appealing to a bigger one (this 'God' posit, whatever it's supposed to be).

Atheists just seem to ignore the issue entirely.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
One of the biggest problems with abiogenesis is how homochirality formed in life when in nature organic compounds arethere are racemic (equal left and right hand forms). This article goes into some detail concerning the experimental studies concerning how homochirality formed during abiogenesis.

Source: cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/11/3/a032540.abstract

The Origin of Biological Homochirality
Donna G. Blackmond
+Author Affiliations

Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037
Correspondence: [email protected]
SUMMARY
The fact that sugars, amino acids, and the biological polymers they construct exist exclusively in one of two possible mirror-image forms has fascinated scientists and laymen alike for more than a century. Yet, it was only in the late 20th century that experimental studies began to probe how biological homochirality, a signature of life, arose from a prebiotic world that presumably contained equal amounts of both mirror-image forms of these molecules. This review discusses experimental studies aimed at understanding how chemical reactions, physical processes, or a combination of both may provide prebiotically relevant mechanisms for the enrichment of one form of a chiral molecule over the other to allow for the emergence of biological homochirality.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The implications of the single chirality of biological molecules may be viewed in the context of increasing complexity at both the molecular and macroscopic levels. In the molecular sciences research, this has been codified as the field of“systems chemistry”(von Kiedrowski, 2005), which seeks to understand the chemical roots of biological organization by studying the emergence of system properties that may be different from those showed individually by the components in isolation. The abiotic construction of homochiral genetic polymers from molecular building blocks implies at least some minimal degree of enantioenrichment at the molecular level, if not molecular homochirality, to ensure efficiency as RNA or peptide chains grow in length. This review has described a variety of work invoking either chemical or physical processes, or both, that might allow the emergence of biological homochirality

© Copyright Original Source
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Oh grief!!!

What may or may not have happened in the past has no bearing on the acceptance of theories today.

I accept that birds descended from theropods based on the evidence I have seen.

The belief you are promoting is based on faith and not on evidence. It is not the belief that is used in science. You can scream it. You can disrespect people. You can point out instances in the past where ignorance was acted on rather than evidence. You can highlight the trivial as if it were more significant. You can substitute straw man arguments and manipulate other logical fallacies to promote your attempts to denigrate science. But that is all you are doing.

You have not shown that accepting scientific theories is equivalent to believing without evidence. You have not shown that the views of science are equal to any random persons opinion.

You have done nothing to persuade anyone that the reasons you reject science are more than just blindly following the doctrine of your sect.

Very good job of obfuscating my point.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Why would you say that? I know.... Because you have completely ignored the science, you have not bothered with a simple google search. Rather you rely on personal belief.

So what i will do is save you the bother of a Google search and instead provide a few links

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created

"A New Form of Life" --Living Organism Created With Entirely Human-Made DNA | The Daily Galaxy

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab


There are several more examples if you care to look, none of which need your or the bibles approval
These examples are fascinating!
I have no issue with these experiments. If anything, it highlights the need for intelligence to be the cause.

And I appreciate how the first article puts it; “redesigned DNA”, indicating the original DNA was designed.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Very good job of obfuscating my point.
Explain your assertion. Show how I obfuscated the point.

You are claiming that some people believed theories in the past that are no longer considered valid today. I do not know if that were the case or not, since you provided only your opinion as evidence for it. However, allowing for the possibility that some did believe theories in the past without evidence or understanding evidence, I pointed out that this possible past state has no bearing on the conditions for acceptance of theories in modern science.

The view of science that you are promoting is based on your personal interest in the doctrine of a religious sect and not for any valid reasons. You rely on superfluous and often irrelevant and outdated references to challenge modern science. I need no obfuscation for the recognition of the weakness of your assertions and I did not employ it.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
These examples are fascinating!
I have no issue with these experiments. If anything, it highlights the need for intelligence to be the cause.

And I appreciate how the first article puts it; “redesigned DNA”, indicating the original DNA was designed.


Actually it shows the need for the right constituents and environment. Which given time is known to occur

Redesign does not necessarily imply original design, only a change from a template. In this case a natural template.

Redesign : design (something) again or in a different way.

But feel free to interpretate words to suit your own belief
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
These examples are fascinating!
I have no issue with these experiments. If anything, it highlights the need for intelligence to be the cause.

Out of context as to how science considers the origin and evolution of life, which is not designed by an outside source.

And I appreciate how the first article puts it; “redesigned DNA”, indicating the original DNA was designed.

Different use of design then what the bogus Intelligent Design religious agenda proposes.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Oh, grief!
Why were rejected theories of science, accepted in the first place?

Because they were initially believed to be accurate!

Don't you get it? Belief is always part of it.

Do you know how many superceded theories there are? All were believed in, at one time.

Just like the 'BAND' paleontologists....they don't believe birds descended from theropods; you though, I'm sure, do believe in that idea.

What are 'BAND' paleontologists?

There is absolutely nothing in science that is 'believed to be accurate nor 'proven' (very foolish biased layman language) that does not reflect science. Your lack of knowledge of science and religious agenda dominates your thinking and self-inflicted ignorance. Science over time falsifies theories and hypothesis which change with new discoveries and research, Even Einstein's theories and hypothesis have changed and reevaluated and changed over time due to new research and discoveries.

As usual seriously ejecting the fact that scientific knowledge evolves with new research and discoveries over time Contemporary paleontologist universally support that birds evolved from a branch of Theropods based on overwhelming evidence much of which I have cited on this website.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Actually it shows the need for the right constituents and environment. Which given time is known to occur

Redesign does not necessarily imply original design, only a change from a template. In this case a natural template.

Redesign : design (something) again or in a different way.

But feel free to interpretate words to suit your own belief

Redesign' is simply very bad layman's terminology.
 

Yazata

Active Member
No, they aren’t, I agree....
But the biological sciences do deny a Designer!

Sort of...

As Shunyadragon wrote earlier, the natural sciences proceed according to methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is about what the scope of science is. Its justification is epistemological, by consideration of what human beings can know. Science seeks to describe and explain things that can be known by humans in terms of other things that can be known by humans. If we try to explain things that can be known by appealing to things that can't be known, then it's hard to see how that would be an informative explanation at all.

Metaphysical naturalism is about what the boundaries of reality are. Many atheists are fond of this one, insisting that the boundaries of reality are coextensive with the range of science. If it isn't recognized by science, it can't exist. I don't really see how this version of naturalism can be justified. It seems to be a matter of faith.

So... I'd argue that the biological sciences don't deny the existence of a designer, nor do they propose one. What the biological sciences do is say that "explanations" that rely on supernatural designers aren't part of natural science, simply by definition. That (contra the metaphysical naturalists) doesn't mean that a designer can't exist.

Admittedly many scientists, especially the ones who write pop-science books, and most normal people in the street, blur and confuse these distinctions.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Wouldn't that second sentence qualify you as an "Intelligent Design stooge" as well? If not, why not?

Your version certainly looks like ID and/or divine creationism to me.

One version posits that life is a direct special creation, the result of God reaching into the natural world and working a miraculous act of creation here on Earth (or wherever life originated).

Absolutely not concerning the Baha'i Faith and in my view. Yes, both the teaching of the Baha'i Faith and my view believe in the harmony of science and religion, but science remains independent. The problem with Intelligent design is it deliberately tries to manipulate science to prove their case that the scientific evidence demonstrates that abiogenesis and evolution cannot come about naturally. This threatens the independence of the Methodological Naturalism of science, and the ID proponents do go further trying to justify literal Biblical Creation in one form or another either Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism.

The other version posits God initially producing the "laws of nature" in some grand miraculous act of universe creation, with the "laws of nature" (and presumably the initial conditions to plug into those laws) crafted in such a way that things subsequently evolve as God intended.

The Baha'i Faith nor I propose any miraculous sort of Creation. The evidence of science cannot be justified as having evidence nor justification for proving God exists, The Atheist, Agnostic, Deist

I believe that St. Augustine's theology of miracles is consistent with the latter version. Augustine argued that God works miracles not by capriciously violating his own natural laws, but by exploiting very obscure 'small-print' laws originally built into nature at creation. Augustine's motivation wasn't to defend science, which didn't exist in his time, but rather to protect divine consistency.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. Life ends up being divinely created and intelligently designed either way. All that's different is the manner of the Divine creation event.

Actual read all of St. Augustine's writings, and you will find he believed in a literal Biblical Creation.
There is a distinct difference on how I view science, and the Intelligent Design fols do. Methodological Naturalism and science is independent and neutral to any Theological nor Philosophical view of Creation or no Creation,
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sort of...

As Shunyadragon wrote earlier, the natural sciences proceed according to methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is about what the scope of science is. Its justification is epistemological, by consideration of what human beings can know. Science seeks to describe and explain things that can be known by humans in terms of other things that can be known by humans. If we try to explain things that can be known by appealing to things that can't be known, then it's hard to see how that would be an informative explanation at all.

Metaphysical naturalism is about what the boundaries of reality are. Many atheists are fond of this one, insisting that the boundaries of reality are coextensive with the range of science. If it isn't recognized by science, it can't exist. I don't really see how this version of naturalism can be justified. It seems to be a matter of faith.

So... I'd argue that the biological sciences don't deny the existence of a designer, nor do they propose one. What the biological sciences do is say that "explanations" that rely on supernatural designers aren't part of natural science, simply by definition. That (contra the metaphysical naturalists) doesn't mean that a designer can't exist.

Admittedly many scientists, especially the ones who write pop-science books, and most normal people in the street, blur and confuse these distinctions.

This post is better than your previous one when you misrepresent my view. I agree for the most part except your note of sarcasm.
 

Yazata

Active Member
Why would you say that? I know.... Because you have completely ignored the science, you have not bothered with a simple google search. Rather you rely on personal belief.

So what i will do is save you the bother of a Google search and instead provide a few links

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created

"A New Form of Life" --Living Organism Created With Entirely Human-Made DNA | The Daily Galaxy

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab


There are several more examples if you care to look, none of which need your or the bibles approval

Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.

A treatment comprehensible by laypeople

Minimal genome - Wikipedia

A more advanced treatment

Essential gene - Wikipedia

The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.

For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)

So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)

Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.

That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.

And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.

I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.

A treatment comprehensible by laypeople

Minimal genome - Wikipedia

A more advanced treatment

Essential gene - Wikipedia

The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.

For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)

So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)

Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.

That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.

And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.

I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.

Venter is not the only one, he was just the first
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.

A treatment comprehensible by laypeople

Minimal genome - Wikipedia

A more advanced treatment

Essential gene - Wikipedia

The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.

For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)

So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)

Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.

That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.

And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.

I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.

I doubt many could "pull the wool over your eyes" so to speak with regard to science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.

I doubt many could "pull the wool over your eyes" so to speak with regard to science.

Not sure what your point is??? Venter's work had nothing to with abiogenesis, nor even evolution. Neither Venter nor anyone else makes a claim it relevant to abiogenesis nor evolution.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.

I doubt many could "pull the wool over your eyes" so to speak with regard to science.
It is interesting to take a neutral attitude towards research. Not often done, so it's refreshing to see Yazata's comments.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.

A treatment comprehensible by laypeople

Minimal genome - Wikipedia

A more advanced treatment

Essential gene - Wikipedia

The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.

For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)

So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)

Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.

That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.

And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.

I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
Interesting, thanks for your refreshing summation. Although...there is mystery in the universe and the ideas posited by some scientists.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is interesting to take a neutral attitude towards research. Not often done, so it's refreshing to see Yazata's comments.

I see Yazata;s comments as simply factually clarifying Venter's research. which never had anything to do with abiogenesis nor evolution. Venter nor anyone else ever claimed that Venter's work is relevant to this thread nor the subject.

What is it about Venter's work and Yazata's clarification refreshing?
 
Top