My Abiogenesis Challenge

[AV1611VET]

What part of cosmic evolution is abiogenesis under?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let Me Google That For You.

 

[KWCrazy]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. The ladder has no first rung. You can jump to a second rung with an implied first rung, but if you in any way indicate that the ladder has to have a first rung you are an uneducated simple minded person who doesn't understand evolution.

Science cannot account for the origination of anything.

 

[Speedwell]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. The ladder has no first rung. You can jump to a second rung with an implied first rung, but if you in any way indicate that the ladder has to have a first rung you are an uneducated simple minded person who doesn't understand evolution.

Science cannot account for the origination of anything.

Of course the ladder has a first rung. Something happened to bring life into existence from non-living matter. At this point, scientists can't say exactly what it was. But whatever it was was not the same as what produces the diversity of life after it began. So, it is uneducated and simple-minded to assert that it is useless to study the mechanism producing the diversity of life until science an tell us how it began.

 

[Larniavc]

What part of cosmic evolution is abiogenesis under?

It's not.

Abiogenesis is biochemistry, not cosmology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let Me Google That For You.

Well, your buddy Google narrowed the field for you to seven choices.

Care to tell us which one?

After all, I'm just ignit when it comes to evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not.

Actually it is.

Abiogenesis is biochemistry, not cosmology.

So it's under chemical evolution then?

 

[Larniavc]

So it's under chemical evolution then?

It's biochemistry, not cosmology.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's biochemistry, not cosmology.

Hey, chief, I frankly don't care what it is and isn't.

But whatever it is(n't), it falls under one of seven different compartments of cosmic evolution, and I'm asking which one.

 

[Speedwell]

What is "chemical evolution?"

 

[AV1611VET]

What is "chemical evolution?"

Chemical evolution says all elements evolved from hydrogen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, your buddy Google narrowed the field for you to seven choices.

Care to tell us which one?

Nope. Not doing your own work for you.

After all, I'm just ignit when it comes to evolution.

I doubt that's the only thing you're ignorant in...

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Not doing your own work for you.

It's your philosophy, not mine.

Now you know why I called this a challenge, don't you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's your philosophy, not mine.

It's an area of scientific study, not a philosophy.

Now you know why I called this a challenge, don't you?

No, the only one who seems to find these sorts of things a challenge is you and you alone. As they say, Google is your friend.

 

[KWCrazy]

Something happened to bring life into existence from non-living matter.

What non-living matter?
The matter that cannot be created or destroyed; only changed in form to a lesser form of heat energy?
Who's to say it came from non-living matter? What if the origin of life is the same as the origin of matter? If matter can begin from nothingness in defiance of natural law, why can't life? Moreover, if it can happen once, could it not happen again? Could a galaxie form in your closet? Could a new life form pop into existence in your basement?

Science cannot account for origination. It violates the laws of nature. There is, however, a higher law that makes it all make sense; God's law. God said "let there be..." and there was. Instant origination. No cause; no effect.

 

[Speedwell]

What non-living matter?
The matter that cannot be created or destroyed; only changed in form to a lesser form of heat energy?

Not exactly. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter; together the two of them together cannot, so far as we know, be created or destroyed, only converted from one to the other.

Who's to say it came from non-living matter?

Who's to say? But since matter appears to have existed before life, it is a reasonable working assumption, especially as living things are made of matter.

If matter can begin from nothingness...

Who says it did? I gather that the current speculation is that it came from something called the "quantum vacuum" which is not the same as nothingness. Alternatively, some hold that mass/energy has always existed in some form or another. Nothingness doesn't come into it.

...in defiance of natural law...

What natural law would that be?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

....in the same way the Big Bang is not part of Atomic Theory. Who says you can't teach Creationists?

The ladder has no first rung. You can jump to a second rung with an implied first rung, but if you in any way indicate that the ladder has to have a first rung you are an uneducated simple minded person who doesn't understand evolution.

Science cannot account for the origination of anything.

...aww, Nope - back to being broken. -_-

 

[AV1611VET]

But since matter appears to have existed before life,

Which came first? matter or life?

 

[KWCrazy]

And did the life matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

And did the life matter?

What do you mean by that?