Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Having looked at why TEs believe what they believe and some of their answers to my questions another topic came up; Abiogenesis. I decided I would do another thread on this topic. Thus begins the questions (Note: I am not interested in debating at this time, just looking to understand the viewpoints on this topic).
Where does abiogenesis begin? What are the theories within abiogenesis? How does this relation to evolution? In your opinion which is the most viable theory and why?
Having looked at why TEs believe what they believe and some of their answers to my questions another topic came up; Abiogenesis. I decided I would do another thread on this topic. Thus begins the questions (Note: I am not interested in debating at this time, just looking to understand the viewpoints on this topic).
Where does abiogenesis begin? What are the theories within abiogenesis? How does this relation to evolution? In your opinion which is the most viable theory and why?
I know a little about abiogenesis, so I'll try to answer what I can. Abiogenesis referes the process of how life came from non-life. It probably falls under chemistry rather than biology. It's really not related to evolution since the theory of evolution only applies once life existed.
Think of it this way, whether or not God specially created each kind, or all life came from a common ancestor, evolution happened and still will happen. As long as mutations occur and reproduction occurs, evolution will occur.
As for viable theories, there's quite a bit of theories, each with supporting evidence and each of flaws in some parts. The thing is, we'll never know if a theory is correct. However, what we can show is that a theory if viable.
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
I know a little about abiogenesis, so I'll try to answer what I can. Abiogenesis referes the process of how life came from non-life. It probably falls under chemistry rather than biology. It's really not related to evolution since the theory of evolution only applies once life existed.
Think of it this way, whether or not God specially created each kind, or all life came from a common ancestor, evolution happened and still will happen. As long as mutations occur and reproduction occurs, evolution will occur.
As for viable theories, there's quite a bit of theories, each with supporting evidence and each of flaws in some parts. The thing is, we'll never know if a theory is correct. However, what we can show is that a theory if viable.
At the most basic level, biology is nothing but chemistry. And at the more basic level, chemistry is nothing but physics. Terms like biology and chemistry are human terms made up to help us classify areas of science. I wouldn't get too hung up about it. Just take home the idea that the line between life and non-life is extremely hard to determine when it comes to abiogenesis. While we might not never know what the first life was like, I bet it would be vastly more simple than the simplest bacteria alive today.
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
At the most basic level, biology is nothing but chemistry. And at the more basic level, chemistry is nothing but physics. Terms like biology and chemistry are human terms made up to help us classify areas of science. I wouldn't get too hung up about it. Just take home the idea that the line between life and non-life is extremely hard to determine when it comes to abiogenesis. While we might not never know what the first life was like, I bet it would be vastly more simple than the simplest bacteria alive today.
this is reductionism and is not scientifically provable but is a philosophic position. With the idea of emergent properties and fundamental differences in the levels of the discussion, extreme reductionism is getting harder and harder to support.
It warrants a discussion of it's own.
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
At the most basic level, biology is nothing but chemistry. And at the more basic level, chemistry is nothing but physics. Terms like biology and chemistry are human terms made up to help us classify areas of science. I wouldn't get too hung up about it. Just take home the idea that the line between life and non-life is extremely hard to determine when it comes to abiogenesis. While we might not never know what the first life was like, I bet it would be vastly more simple than the simplest bacteria alive today.
Does all biology have "life," i.e. a living function?
At the most basic level, biology is nothing but chemistry. And at the more basic level, chemistry is nothing but physics. Terms like biology and chemistry are human terms made up to help us classify areas of science.
Would the science and all it's disciplines concur with this statement?
Would the science and all it's disciplines concur with this statement?
You know what? I take back what I said. rmwilliamsll is right. It's unknown whether or not properties of a system can be explained at the most basic levels. I suggest that if you want to learn about abiogenesis, go to wiki, read about the summary they have, but then follow the references. I'm in far over my head. When it comes to abiogenesis, I just know the basic parts of the theory.
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
Why not read through it, see what you can understand, and then ask about anything you can't understand.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Most simply (I think...):
Volcanic earth. Thunder storms. Little oxygen. Pool of chemicals. Simple reations. Molecules bond. More bond. Eventually a self replicating molecule inside a 'coat' (possibly similar to a virus). Molecule begins to make it's own 'food'. Final product= a primitive cell, similar to a chemo(?)synthetic archaebacterium.
If I remeber correctly life needs:
1. Homeostasis- control over internal environment
2. Reproduction
3. Growth
4. Errr. Can't remember... But you get a basic idea.
Linear Mode
