I know so, because I am the author of the thread. Please stay on topic.
-
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
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
I know so, because I am the author of the thread. Please stay on topic.
This occurs in a transitional form in the group single stranded ma viruses where most are single stranded viruses have only RNA, and a few have both RNA and DNA.
Last edited:
Non science types obsess over "proof". As you say, it's not about that.
People should think more about exploring possibilities & greater understanding.
That's what's interesting.
Actually no, the hypothesis of abiogenesis simply deals with the evolution of non-life chemicals to the earliest known simple life forms, and has no direct relation with the evolution of consciousness, which is intimately involved with the later evolution of the brain and nervous system.
Terrible science logic to justify a religious agenda, and actually no relationship to the science of abiogenesis. The mythology of randomness is in the Theistic Creationist perspective that any form of randomness plays a role in whether abiogenesis and evolution takes place,
Abiogenesis deals with the steps of the evolution of non-life chemistry,nucleotides (amino acids), to RNA and than DNA and simple reproducable microbe life form. Evolution takes over from there, and as the foundation of the evolution of primative brains and nervous systems , and than the evolution of the mind and consciousness in complex brains and the resulting brains, and the mind and consciousness.
Let;s deal with first things first.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is common misconception. Abiogenesis is not a theory but simply a term denoting the emergence of life from non-life. So really there is nothing to argue about, unless you maintain that there was always life here on Earth, even when it was coalescing from an accretion disc of gas and dust. If you agree that there was a time before life appeared, then you have no quarrel with abiogenesis. The issue that arises is how abiogenesis took place, not that it did so.
As for your question about how what we call "consciousness" has arisen yes I have an explanation for that, but you won't like it and it is not the subject of this thread.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is Wellwisher. You can expect an obsessive insistence on the special properties of water, possibly with a digression into H-bonding, and a rambling argument about a mangled version of entropy. Oh, and if things go badly, "liberals" may make a cameo appearance. He has been doing the same thing for years on other forums.
Your correct abiogenesis is not a theory, actually neither is the science of evolution. Both sciences represent many proposed hypothesis for falsification. At present the science of abiogensis is many hypothesis concerning the mechanisms and the biochemistry for non-life chemicals forming the basis for RNA, and the mechanism of early reproduction and the evolution of elements of metabolism like the formation of functional organic phosphates from inorganic phosphates as in: Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth and an earlier reference in another thread which I will address more later.
I believe @Revoltingest proposed that abiogenesis was at present 'hypothetical.' I believe it is more than that, and actual hypothesis are proposed and falsified concerning the mechanisms and the biochemistry of abiogenesis as cited in the various articles in this thread..
Last edited:
May be a bit of philosophy is required. I know that you know sAmkhya exceedingly well and may be bored yet let me record this here.
What I will say may not seem relevant to any, except to those who have some idea of difference between Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Self). The former is inert and appears intelligent and living by borrowed light of Purusha only.
Prakriti is mind-object world. Purusha is the conscious self. The former is studied and that study will never resolve into anything. The latter cannot be studied empirically-objectively because it is the subject that is the "I" awareness. Prakriti is the seen. Purusha is the Seer. Seer studies the seen and under ignorance imagines that the seen is life-intelligence. Seer cannot study itself.
RNA and then DNA and bacteria, and then numerous forms are forms of Prakriti-Nature and have no life-consciousness of their own.
I have come to understand that for salvation-nirvana-moksha, understanding the distinction between the seer and the seen is essential. I note this since this is a religious forum.
...
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I think there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution in that there is a well-worked out theory of evolution, supported by a masses of observation, whereas for abiogenesis all we have are some promising hypotheses for parts of what remains a jigsaw with most of the pieces missing.
Perhaps one might say that there is a fact of evolution, i.e. we have observed organisms to evolve, and there is a theory of how this happens. For abiogenesis, by contrast, we have again the fact that once there was no life and now there is, ergo abiogenesis has indisputably taken place, but in this case we don't yet have a coherent theory of how it occurred.
Would you accept that characterisation?
There is no science reference to show that life-intelligence emerged from RNA. There are many theories. No one denies evolution of chemical structure and forms but that does not mean that you have explained origin of life.
Philosophy may in part determine one's view of abiogenesis, but it is not relevant concerning the reality of the science of evolution.
Science makes no claims the microbes (bacteria, viruses, and other microbes) have no life-consciousness of their own. The mind and consciousness evolving as a result of the evolution of brain and nervous system is another topic.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well of course not! How abiogenesis occurred remains one of the most intriguing problems in modern science.
What we do know is that once there was no life and now there is, so obviously this change came to pass via some process, which is being studied. These studies are the subject of this thread.
"Intelligence" however is not part of the discussion, any more than "consciousness". We are looking at the change from pre-biotic chemicals to the precursors to the simplest archaea, bacteria etc. Intelligence and consciousness are clearly not helpful concepts for understanding this change.
Last edited:
I do not like the use of fact, and use of theory in terms of the science of evolution, because, in part, these terms represent an IUD minefield for Creationist and those with a religious agenda against science to generate misinformation, and I do not consider them helpful in describing the science. Yes, evolution is by far better documented beyond any reasonable doubt, but Fundamentalist Creationists and others with a religious agenda use phony arguments against both with 'blind faith.' I believe we actually do know the necessary steps required for abiogenesis to occur, and the current trend in the science is to falsify the mechanisms and biochemistry necessary to develop hypothesis for falsification.
I do not believe the assertion of 'we don't yet have a coherent theory of how it occurred' is accurate. It is true there are still unknowns, but the basics of what needs to be falsified as far as the goals of falsification of the mechanisms and biochemistry are clear and specific. These issues will be addressed in this thread based on the recent research.
Last edited:
I have no problem with study of abiogenesis at all. I am a chemist.
My point is different. You may or may not find the following relevant and may resort to sarcasm and ridicule as is common. Yet I am recording my understanding.
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.
...
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
By fact I meant that we observe organisms to evolve, (peppered moth, antibiotic resistance etc). But I take your point about creationists wilfully misunderstanding the difference between this and the theory of the process.
I am very intrigued by your view that we have a theory of abiogenesis. I expect you are closer to the state of the art on this than I am and I look forward to your further explanations of which parts are now on solid enough foundations to qualify as a theory.
exchemist
Veteran Member
But why do you, again, jump to sentient life. We are not concerned with sentient life here, - unless you are claiming that the most primitive archaea were already sentient. Is that your claim? If so on what grounds?
I consider my criticism very real and justified, because of the lack of response on your part to the actual science involved. For example: You still have not responded to my questions from a science perspective concerning the reverence concerning the abiogenesis and phosphates. Still waiting . . .
As far as science is concerned life is well defined in the hypothesis of abiogenesis, and the 'sentience is property of the subject (you) and not property of body chemicals or the whole body or any part thereof.' does not define life, and it relates to the evolution of intelligent life and humans, and NOT abiogenesis.
Life defined as far as the science of abigenesis is concerned: Concerning abiogenesis we are not dealing with sentient life.
From: Life - Wikipedia
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential synthetic life as "living". Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
I consider observations like; peppered moth, antibiotic resistance etc. as objectively observed facts as properly defined, because facts fundamentally do not change, and this is where the Fundies jump on this like flies on manure in their assault on evolution..
I consider theories to more fundamental to science, and evolution and abiogenesis are sciences that are based on theories like all science, and propose hypothesis to be falsified to support the predictions of the science.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not debating any points yet. I am just offering a bit of help. One site that I like for this discussion is that of Nobel Prize winning Jack Szostak:
Szostak Lab: Home
It not only describes some of the processes of abiogenesis as they are understood today, it also has links to the latest peer reviewed work by Szostak lab:
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
Szostak Lab: Home
It not only describes some of the processes of abiogenesis as they are understood today, it also has links to the latest peer reviewed work by Szostak lab:
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
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
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."
Finally, abiogenenesis can be believed. Thank you shunyadragon.