• 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!

Towards Abiogenesis, step by step

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
I'm inclined to agree with Subduction Zone here.

I read the article as pointing to a continuum from simplicity (he cites the hydrogen atom) to colossal biochemical complexity (he cites the brain). Life is at one end and nonlife at the other, but there's no crossover point but a large blurry crossover region which throws up blurry examples that fit our intuition of life but not our definitions.

And he also points out that this implies ways forward in the search for abiogenesis, and gives an example I wasn't aware of, which resulted in spontaneous formation of self-replicating complex chemicals ─ a very impressive trick:

the pair eventually produced two ribozymes that could replicate one another ad infinitum as long as they were supplied with sufficient nucleotides. Not only can these naked RNA molecules reproduce, they can also mutate and evolve​

Thanks for the article, by the way ─ excellent reading.


And the issue with this is what?

You're agreeing with the creationist?
 
Last edited:

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Oh well, here comes simple.
My thought is that since there is no such thing (objectively) as matter, it couldn't be living. Since I side with the subjectivists (to whom or what is the tricky question). Interestingly though, matter being subjective, it certainly could "appear" to be living. It could appear to be as whatever we (or whom/what again) see it. I'm sure some scientist or tists will appear to create life at some point, freeing Pandora's captives once again. Let's all watch.


I agree with you. The Fundamental Forces aka: the Fundamental Interactions... Interaction is fundamental, not matter. We start out with the essential stuff...gravity, electromagnetism, etc. From there we get simple interactions such as a single atom or molecule. Given enough time and the right conditions we get various complex interactions ie: complex chains of molecules and atoms leading up to the "appearance" of what we call life. At no point was life created, things just got more complex and naturally more interactive over time.

Happy interacting! :D
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Firstly, in what way is life the product of evolution?

All life that we see today is descended from a common ancestor. Surely that meaning should have been obvious.

Secondly, are you assuming that life should have been the result of some "creation" event and therefore there should be a hard border between life and non-life somewhere?

Unless you are a creationist of some sort, life was never "created", matter changed form and things became more complex and more interactive. That's what "life" is...complex, highly interactive forms of matter.

I am not a creationist. But if life was created we should see such a hard border between life and non-life. We do not. That does not bode well for creationists. Did you not read my post before responding? I clearly said "IF life was the result of a creation event . . ." That means I made no assumptions. I drew a conclusion based upon creationist claims.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
All life that we see today is descended from a common ancestor. Surely that meaning should have been obvious.



I am not a creationist. But if life was created we should see such a hard border between life and non-life. We do not. That does not bode well for creationists. Did you not read my post before responding? I clearly said "IF life was the result of a creation event . . ." That means I made no assumptions. I drew a conclusion based upon creationist claims.


My apologies and yes, I actually read your post over a few times, but for some reason I still managed to misinterpret what you were saying. I see what you are saying now. I still don't really see how life is a product of evolution...unless you mean specifically the complexity of life is a product of evolution, not life itself.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My apologies and yes, I actually read your post over a few times, but for some reason I still managed to misinterpret what you were saying. I see what you are saying now. I still don't really see how life is a product of evolution...unless you mean specifically the complexity of life is a product of evolution, not life itself.


No problem.

And since creationists practically never test their concepts those on the side of science have to do so for them at times. Their claims are almost always negated by what is easily observed in nature.
 
Top