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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Currently the best explanation for the beginning of life. Is it correct? Maybe.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.
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).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?
Well, a few months ago they finally got RNA to come out of the primordial soup.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.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?
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.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?
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?
Why does there need to be a why?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).
While conceding that your education and knowledge in this subject greatly exceeds mine, I would respectfully disagree.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.
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.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.
"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.
That's a lot of cut and paste. One has to wonder how much of it you actually understand.Reference: How is it Possible?
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.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.
That's a lot of cut and paste. One has to wonder how much of it you actually understand.