Abiogenesis Progress

[Non sequitur]

Even so, the principle purpose of basic science classes at the secondary level is to teach the epistemology of science. The distinction between fact and theory should be carefully and clearly drawn.

I swear, that goal post was in a different location...

I am not aware of it being un-clearly drawn. Can you give an example?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, as I stated, it's been a give and take. I'm on the fence about a lot of things. I don't consider myself as someone who has absolute knowledge about anything, but a student of all things. I have a difficult time, though, with 'facts' that constantly change. One of the first moments happened when I was trying to get involved in a debate where I was made into a fool because I was reciting stuff I learned in high school.

Who were you debating? A creationist?

 

[Ophiolite]

"Evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Ken Miller (the Professor of Biology at Brown) will be crushed.

You realise, do you not, that the quoted statement does not assert that evolution is a fact. Almost the reverse.

The quote raises the implicit concept that all conclusions in science are provisional, yet some such provisional conclusions are so well tested and validated and supported that if science did allow for definitive conclusions then the theory of evolution would be one. That is, evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a lie of the devil.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's interesting that those who believe in abiogenesis will tell you that abiogenesis has nothing ... zip ... nada to do with evolution; but in this thread, which is on the subject of abiogenesis, to date, abiogenesis is mentioned "eight" times, while "evolution" is mentioned eighteen.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There's a lot of science that hasn't been proven. It's forever stuck in the hypothesis stage because there was no one around billions of years ago to witness and record what happened.

All you have is how things are naturally progressing RIGHT NOW. Science is naturalistic by nature, which is perfectly understandable. I don't hate science. I'm not at war with science. I love studying things! Astronomy was always my thing.

It's assumed that Christians are only Christians because they were brain-washed, but my parents weren't Christians. We didn't go to church. We never talked about God. We didn't own a bible. I was that science geek who entered all the science fairs (and my presentation on planets even got me to the regional fair, but I got crushed.

One of my most favorite memories with my dad was when he took me to a planetarium and observatory to see Comet Hale-Bopp. I collected rocks and fossils, watched Jurassic Park almost non-stop because it was my favorite movie, knew that the raptors in the movie were too big, and on and on.

I remember in high school I took a college oceanography course and we watched a documentary on whale evolution when the professor was out. My lab partner, who became my friend, was a Christian and I would tease him. "How can you believe in God? Didn't you watch and see how whales evolved over millions of years from land-dwelling creatures?" but he stuck to his guns.

A few years later after I graduated, I had a supernatural encounter with God that made me question everything I know about everything in life and have spent the last 13 or so years of my life trying to find answers.

Do I claim to be a foremost science expert? No. I consider my interest as hobby and a love to learn things. Recently I've been studying UY Scuti and Betelgeuse. Betelgeuse is due to go supernova any moment between now and 100,000 years from now. It would be pretty awesome to see, considering it would most likely light up the night sky brighter than a full moon.

As much as I love science and considered being an astronomer, my math skills are quite poor and I ended up becoming a writer instead. I got my college degree in journalism and technical writing and am a published author. And yes, I realize I did plagiarize by borrowing a quote I didn't attribute. I'm usually very good at that if you were to see previous posts of mine, so please consider this a slip of protocol rather than me just being a dishonest person.

We see evidence of things that happened in the past all the time - How far away is Betelgeuse, for example? What history would Adam and Eve see under their feet had they dug in the Garden of Eden? Would they have found fossils of long extinct animals, plants and microbial organisms that never existed? and when you say "There's a lot of science that hasn't been proven. It's forever stuck in the hypothesis stage because there was no one around billions of years ago to witness and record what happened." - do you accept that a detective can solve a crime they weren't there to witness? How could you know that science will never solve these questions?

True. But not scientific.

What, the googling of scientific citations isn't scientific, or that the scientific citations themselves aren't scientific?

Well, as I stated, it's been a give and take. I'm on the fence about a lot of things. I don't consider myself as someone who has absolute knowledge about anything, but a student of all things. I have a difficult time, though, with 'facts' that constantly change. One of the first moments happened when I was trying to get involved in a debate where I was made into a fool because I was reciting stuff I learned in high school.

The fact is, most of the stuff I was taught about science in school is now obsolete. A lot of the stuff being written right now might be obsolete in the next 10-20 years. Science is an evolving practice and I have a difficult time with someone telling me something is a FACT when it's a THEORY with multiple moving parts that changes often.

It's difficult to reconcile. And the more discoveries that are made, the closer it draws me to God because I see how complex, yet fragile life is.

I'd be interested to know what 'facts' constantly change, as opposed to refined further... Obsolescence in our scientific understanding of something generally consists of such refinements and not so much a complete rewrite, but I'm curious to know what you think we should do with observations that don't correlate with what we know about a thing?

"Evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Ken Miller (the Professor of Biology at Brown) will be crushed.

lol! Evolution is a fact, things change. I think that's what Kenneth Miller was saying, specifically in relation to the diversity of life on this planet, and more precisely, our origins as & with Apes - the Theory of Evolution is a framework we use to explain the facts, so can't really be called a fact in itself. I think some of us here are confusing the two....?

 

[driewerf]

There has been a lot of progress in the abiogenesis theory in recent years, and I thought it would be worth going over the basic steps of abiogenesis that HAVE been observed in labs.

1. Using models of ancient Earth conditions, simple sugars, amino acids, lipids, and nucleic acids are present and form naturally.

2. In the presence of energy (present on the ancient Earth in the forms of heat vents, and even lightening) promote these molecules to build up into larger, more complex molecules (the energy is not necessary for them to do so, it just makes the process faster). Nucleic acids form RNA, and some of these RNA molecules can and do independently replicate.

3. Lipids naturally form bilayers in liquid water (this is what cell membranes are). When these bubbles of lipids form, they capture molecules in the surrounding environment. They can also continue to capture molecules, eventually becoming larger and eventually dividing from the pressure into two lipid bubbles.

4. Lipid bubbles that capture RNA molecules that can replicate have the means to reproduce and pass down basic genetic material. Metabolism consists purely of the lipid bubble taking in molecules from its environment through diffusion (an unguided process), and molecules that don't end up getting used by the RNA to replicate or contribute to increasing the size of the lipid bubble (by becoming trapped inside) simply leave via the same mechanism. A simple life form has formed. They have a simple metabolism, grow, and divide to produce daughter cells with shared genetic material from the original cell. They do not have any complex organelles, and depend upon their environment being stable to maintain their existence.

This has all been observed in lab, and I mostly am referencing the work of Jack Szostak.

For those interested, here is the first part of three videos where Jack Szostak is lecturing about some recent research around abiogenesis.

Some knowledge of chemistry might be required.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's interesting that those who believe in abiogenesis will tell you that abiogenesis has nothing ... zip ... nada to do with evolution; but in this thread, which is on the subject of abiogenesis, to date, abiogenesis is mentioned "eight" times, while "evolution" is mentioned eighteen.

Abiogenesis and evolution are independent processes that function upon different factors and chemistry. Abiogenesis is often, unfortunately, referred to as chemical evolution, and since abiogenesis occurs and is then followed by biological evolution (which the theory of evolution covers), evolution is a term often brought up when abiogenesis is the topic at hand.

Think of it like this situation: The Old Testament is often brought up in the New Testament, but you wouldn't say that they both have all the same authors, right?