Thoughts on Abiogenesis

[durangodawood]

....Abiogenesis is not just the process where life first came into existence. The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living.....

Theres a subtle equivocation here that your argument hinges on. Abiogenesis and plant growth are not really the same idea at all. Yet youve sort of mushed them together into "the creation of life from non life."

 

[stevil]

Like both of you I can imagine a period of 'in-between' where structures come and go and fall into a space somewhere between life and not-life.

As I wrote earlier the target audience is those who struggle (legitimately) to conceive of a transition between life and not life. My main aim was to find a simple illustration of the possibility of non-life becoming life.

I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"

As Bradskii pointed out, it is similar to evolution. There is no discrete point of demarcation between a species and it's ancestor species. Same for stages of development, no discrete point between being a child and being an adult. Someone new to the scene can take a look and tell you if it is a child or an adult. But a person with a stop clock staring at it intently cannot stop the clock at the exact point that it became an adult or became a homosapien or became life from non life.

 

[SelfSim]

The danger is in being overly technical. We're not all organic chemists and we all have areas where we're quite legitimately short on knowledge. Assuming people should know stuff because you do inevitably means your arguments will not cut through.

Yes .. the real danger there though, is not being 'overly technical' .. its more like when those having big opinions, encounter some new concept and lack the tools for gain the necessary knowledge to understand it, then proceed to attack it, along with its explainers, as being wrong, (which is just a cover-up for their own lack of appreciation of their own capabilities of learning).

We are all capable of learning .. Otherwise, how have our genes survived to this day and age?

IMHO, these threads are made more useful by reinforcing peoples' confidence in their own capabilities .. rather than bolstering their personally held feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Occams Barber]

Theres a subtle equivocation here that your argument hinges on. Abiogenesis and plant growth are not really the same idea at all. Yet youve sort of mushed them together into "the creation of life from non life."

True and intentional. I also qualified my equivocation in the 2nd last para.

The initial materials may differ, as will the process,

The whole point of the post was to demonstrate that life from non-life is not the mission impossible it might appear to be. What growth and strict abiogenesis share in common is the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process.

OB

 

[SelfSim]

I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"

As Bradskii pointed out, it is similar to evolution. There is no discrete point of demarcation between a species and it's ancestor species. Same for stages of development, no discrete point between being a child and being an adult. Someone new to the scene can take a look and tell you if it is a child or an adult. But a person with a stop clock staring at it intently cannot stop the clock at the exact point that it became an adult or became a homosapien or became life from non life.

Given that we are referring to models whenever we speak of Abiogenesis and Evolution, it makes no scientific sense to completely ignore fundamental distinguishing differences in their respective starting conditions and the behaviours of their fundamental components.

Self-replication, which has been shown as being correlated with molecular complexity, represents a conceptually fundamental, physical transition between Abiogenesis and Evolution models.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"

As Bradskii pointed out, it is similar to evolution. There is no discrete point of demarcation between a species and it's ancestor species. Same for stages of development, no discrete point between being a child and being an adult. Someone new to the scene can take a look and tell you if it is a child or an adult. But a person with a stop clock staring at it intently cannot stop the clock at the exact point that it became an adult or became a homosapien or became life from non life.

The spark of life thing is pervasive to many cultures - hereabouts they call it a 'soul'. I used the tree analogy to try and avoid 'soul' complications. As far as I know trees don't have a soul.

(Interesting side issue - if trees lack souls do they have some kind of 'life force' to differentiate a tree from a piece of wood? This is a concept associated with animism. Is there a Christian equivalent?)

OB

 

[Astrid]

Given that we are referring to models whenever we speak of Abiogenesis and Evolution, it makes no scientific sense to completely ignore fundamental distinguishing differences in their respective starting conditions and the behaviours of their fundamental components.

Self-replication, which has been shown as being correlated with molecular complexity, represents a conceptually fundamental, physical transition between Abiogenesis and Evolution models.

Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?

 

[durangodawood]

True and intentional. I also qualified my equivocation in the 2nd last para....

I didnt mean you were being disingenuous, as you did announce the equivocation. But I dont think the argument survives that move.

...The whole point of the post was to demonstrate that life from non-life is not the mission impossible it might appear to be. What growth and strict abiogenesis share in common is the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process.

That word "from" is doing some really different kinds of work here. We have:
1. originating out of without precedent.
2. used as ingredients.

The distinction is so meaningful that I dont see how you can hope to satisfy thoughtful creationists.

 

[SelfSim]

What growth and strict abiogenesis share in common is the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process.

Growth is triggered by highly compacted, information dense, modern biologically active molecules. Abiogenesis isn't though.

Both are considered as presenting evidence of natural processes, (which are perhaps, even respectively distinguishable as empirical Laws). In fact bio-growth processes are well documented and parts of Abiogenesis Laws, have been modelled and successfully tested at various scales, in both natural and simulated test environments.

Abiogenesis process theory may be testable elsewhere such as in our own Solar System, (should the predicted conditions present themselves).

 

[SelfSim]

Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?

Earth-life's characteristics are predictably diagnosable.

Whether those same diagnostic tests return definitive results elsewhere in the universe, is an open question.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?

Back in my Human Biology 101 class many decades ago the answer was 'no' but things may have changed. If you look up the biological definition of life you usually get a list of characteristics. What isn't clear to me is whether all characteristics are necessary and whether there are degrees associated with individual characteristics.

I suspect any attempt at a bright line definition will be arguable.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I didnt mean you were being disingenuous, as you did announce the equivocation. But I dont think the argument survives that move.


That word "from" is doing some really different kinds of work here. We have:
1. originating out of without precedent.
2. used as ingredients.

The distinction is so meaningful that I dont see how you can hope to satisfy thoughtful creationists.

There is a barrel load of awkward words in the post. I agonised over many but I'm not sure I succeeded in weeding out all the problematical terminology. There's a limit to the amount of qualification you can use in a post without the post becoming long and hard to follow or sounding legalistic or technical.

In the case of 'from' I tried to define what I meant in the next sentence:

"the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process"​

I'm willing to stick with this definition for now since it contains the three key elements; life (living matter), non-life (inanimate materials) and a 'natural process' (no magic needed).

I grant that I could be trivially wrong here and there. Look at the post as a statement of principle as opposed to a technical treatise.

OB

​

 

[stevil]

Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?

This from Wiki (obviously non definitive)
Life - Wikipedia
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

 

[Bradskii]

One day mankind may work out how life began even find a way to create life. However, I know someone that worked all that out around six thousand years ago.

Some Sumerian scientist?

 

[Bradskii]

There is a barrel load of awkward words in the post. I agonised over many but I'm not sure I succeeded in weeding out all the problematical terminology. There's a limit to the amount of qualification you can use in a post without the post becoming long and hard to follow or sounding legalistic or technical.

In the case of 'from' I tried to define what I meant in the next sentence:

"the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process"​

I'm willing to stick with this definition for now since it contains the three key elements; life (living matter), non-life (inanimate materials) and a 'natural process' (no magic needed).

I grant that I could be trivially wrong here and there. Look at the post as a statement of principle as opposed to a technical treatise.

OB

​

I don't think your examples work. The statement: 'The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living' is not the same as the one above: "the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process".

There's no denying the second one. And you didn't need a tree to use as an example. My breakfast is being converted into living material as I write this. But life isn't being created. Matter is being converted.

There's a difference between a seed which is not alive and one that is. The first will just sit in the ground and decompose. The second will grow. Even though it shows no characteristics of life until you plant it. So a seed is not life created from inanimate materials. It's part of a tree that has been converted into another form. Just as my 'seed' isn't created life. It's parts of me that have been converted (from my breakfast etc) into another form.

I commend your attempt to try to render an incredibly complex process into an easier to understand form. But how you're going to cope with posts that begin with 'Do you actually know the odds of...' and finish with '...which is more than the number of atoms in the universe'.

I wonder if reverse engineering is a good way to tackle the problem. I can't find my copy of Dawkin's book 'The Ancestors Tale' right now. Rather than saying 'This is where we started from' and working forwards, he starts with us and works backwards through time, stopping off at various points where we had a common ancestor. But I can't remember how far back he went and what his thoughts were on abiogenesis (been years since I read it).

I don't know if it might be a better approach to start with the most basic conglomeration of cells etc that all would agree with is 'alive' and then start removing aspects of it's construction until someone says 'No, that's the point where it's not alive'. And then we have what they consider to be the difference between life and non life.

 

[Astrid]

This from Wiki (obviously non definitive)
Life - Wikipedia
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Zactly

 

[SelfSim]

Zactly

Umm .. might you explain your point there? (I'm not exactly clear on what it is?)

 

[Astrid]

Umm .. might you explain your point there? (I'm not exactly clear on what it is?)

At present there no known bright line distinction between
living and non living.
Of course there is no precise definition of life.
IMO there's a continuum with no non arbitrary way to
say if something at the margin is alive or not.

 

[SelfSim]

At present there no known bright line distinction between living and non living.
Of course there is no precise definition of life.
IMO there's a continuum with no non arbitrary way to say if something at the margin is alive or not.

The context is what makes the generally accepted definitions useful for everyday diagnosis.
The outlier cases (beyond those specific contexts) may require their own context specific definitions for the purposes of making consistent claims.

Definitions are contextual and provisional in science .. they change according to observations/measurement data. This is important when it comes to the exploration of what life is.
Whether what we mean by 'life', (according to our Earthly definitions), exists beyond Earth, (for example), is an open, but testable question because of that vastly different context.

 

[SelfSim]

I mean, the organic chemistry which is underway on Titan, (for example), is considered as being worthwhile investigating, as it would be a good test bed for some Abiogenesis models.
What kind of organic chemistry goes on there?; what reaction products persist?; how does the low temperature environment affect complex chemistry reaction processes (compared with Earth's)?, are three meaty questions arising from our own pre-biotic chemical models.

Any updates to the definition of 'life', coming from research on the surface of Titan, would be an outcome of that research ... whereas any definition of 'Earth-life' would be more or less a moot point as far as that research is concerned.
Investigation into an unknown, like the Titan organics environment, would not feature Earth-life's definition(s) .. in fact doing so, would likely just end up biasing the results.