Can you explain this to me? Pt2 Abiogenesis

[pastorkevin73]

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?

 

[random_guy]

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.

 

[pastorkevin73]

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.

How can biology come from chemistry?

 

[random_guy]

How can biology come from chemistry?

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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.

 

[pastorkevin73]

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?

 

[pastorkevin73]

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?

 

[random_guy]

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.

 

[shernren]

I think the wiki article is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life

Why not read through it, see what you can understand, and then ask about anything you can't understand.

 

[ChristianSoldier07]

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.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Here's a link to an article which describes an experiment that suggests that the RNA first scenerio is plausable.

link

Thanks for starting up this thread, pastorkevin73! I'd like to know more about the theories circulating out there.

 

[Poke]

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?

There are no theories of abiogenesis.

I glanced at the Wikipedia entry linked to above, I found this to be cute:

"Clay theory of the origin of life

A hypothesis for the origin of life based on clay..."

Evolutionists like to use "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably, and then accuse Creationists of ignorance for the correct use of these terms. They also use "fact" and "theory" interchangeably (the "Theory" of Evolution is a "fact"). I guess logically, you shouldn't be surprised then when they insist a mere hypothesis, a wild guess, is a scientifically established fact.

There are a number of abiogenesis hypotheses, but none of them are more substantive than claiming that intelligent aliens from outer space planted life on Earth. Some Evolutionists really consider this to be a possibility; although, the aliens can't be God because then it wouldn't be scientific.

 

[Poke]

Here's a link to an article which describes an experiment that suggests that the RNA first scenerio is plausable.

link

How can you trust anything they say? They iz ignorant. They say, "When we subjected these ribozymes to a test-tube evolution..." If they knew anything about Evolution, they'd know that Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.

Their dog and pony RNA show does not make their hypothesis look plausible. Were in nature are quantities of RNA forming outside of life? How would their RNA form cells?

In other abiogenesis news, scientists get hydrogen and oxygen atoms to bond, resulting in water. A source commented that this suggests that a water origin of life is plausible, because life is mostly water.

 

[ChristianSoldier07]

Did you know that Wikipedia entries are made by various people, not all of whom are trained scientists.

Why don't you try learning from someone who really knows what they are talking about- like a biology proffesor.

 

[Mallon]

They iz ignorant.

Was that an attempt at irony?

Poke, before you post your replies, do you ask yourself what Jesus would do? Because your posts come across as very condescending and unChristian. You're very quick to judge, without having honestly examined the issues for yourself. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself to be true, there has been all kinds of literature written on abiogenesis -- honest scientific inquiry performed by qualified scientists.

Speaking of which, have you registered your vote in our "Education" poll yet?

 

[Redneck Crow]

How can you trust anything they say? They iz ignorant. They say, "When we subjected these ribozymes to a test-tube evolution..." If they knew anything about Evolution, they'd know that Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.

Their dog and pony RNA show does not make their hypothesis look plausible. Were in nature are quantities of RNA forming outside of life? How would their RNA form cells?

In other abiogenesis news, scientists get hydrogen and oxygen atoms to bond, resulting in water. A source commented that this suggests that a water origin of life is plausible, because life is mostly water.

*sigh*

Evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "Theory of Evolution."

There are other uses of the word as well, which are not so specific. Yup, the word "evolution" had meanings even before the term Theory of Evolution was coined. That's right. Evil atheists and TE's stole an existing word to describe a specific theory! *laughs diabolically* (<---sarcasm, for the sarcasm impaired) People are still going to use the word evolution uncoupled with "theory of," to describe change. In the context of the article it sounds very much as if the writer was saying that the ribozymes were allowed to change sans outside direction.

The experiment was not one which sought to prove that RNA is being formed from elemental sources today but rather that the ribozymes can arise from non-living sources and might possibly have done so in the past. (let's exclude viri from the discussion as there it is questionable whether they properly classified as life or not) I'd say that they suceeded in forming ribozymes.

 

[Poke]

Evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "Theory of Evolution."

Why do you say that when you know just the opposite is true? Standard Evolutionist M.O. is to accuse Creationists of ignorance when they use the word "evolution", but not the phrase "Theory of Evolution", in reference such things as abiogenesis?

Why, look at what you said just a few days ago to someone, "The theory of evolution addresses change in life forms over successive generations, as others [tripping over each other] have pointed out. Perhaps you are looking for the theory of abiogenesis." The person you were replying to didn't use the phrase "Theory of Evolution".

 

[XTE]

Alot of people are under the misconception that AIDS is a Virus in the standard sense. Where as with a "normal" virus you have RNA structure surrounded by it's own membrane. That is a virus, actually when it attacks a host.

AIDS is a little different with HIV. HIV is a JUST the RNA and completely reliant on a host. It has no genomic structure to build it's own membrane. By all defintions it is NOT ALIVE.

Is it self-replicating though? Yes, if you put it in the right environment. Could this environment exist? Sure, but we can't limit our scope. We have to understand that we are dealing with HUGE numbers, crazy numbers. The possibilities of it happening might be 1 in 10^11 which is a huge number. BUT, if it has 10^20 opportunities given space and time, it almost certainly WILL HAPPEN.

AIDS is HIV AND IT'S HOST, at work. HIV is just a simple set of instructions. You could put HIV in the dish full of it's favorite protein and it would go to work replicating with NO MEMBRANE.

Many would like to think that AIDS came from SIN and sex with monkeys or use it's original name G.R.I.D.S. or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome" to decribe the punishment God layed down for homosexual behavior. It was definetly championed by a slew of pastors this nation over in the early 80's for just that reason. Fortunately, through Science we've found out that it's a mutation and will subsequently be irradicated through Scientific Inquiry. Even now we have "cocktails" that put it in dormancy. All good news.

Did AIDS just arrise? Not that we see, that would be abiogenesis. The point of this post was 2 fold:

1. That RNA just wants to replicate like your RNA and HIV IS JUST RNA.

2. That establishing and fostering an absolute such as "punishment from God" doesn't lead to answers it only allows an agenda to surface. It's opportunistic and wrong. I don't think that is God's plan for us.

Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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?

To a large extent, yes.
Chemistry is certainly nothing but messy physics
Or maybe physics is particularly well defined chemistry?

They started from different places but ended up in pretty much the same place.

Chemistry is like thermodynamics, we simply don't have the computing power to work out how a room full of gas molecules behave by looking at them /only/ as individual molecules, we have to look at them as an assemblage.

And biology is "just" taking chemistry one step further down the messiness slope.

Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?

Well, despite what I have written above I find it worthwhile to remember that very few of the atoms in your body today were there 10 years ago...

 

[random_guy]

Did you know that Wikipedia entries are made by various people, not all of whom are trained scientists.

Why don't you try learning from someone who really knows what they are talking about- like a biology proffesor.

That's why I said look at wiki, but then follow the references. Wiki is a great source for information, provided that the information is backed up with scientific references.

Anyway, pastorkevin73, I suggest you ignore what poke put seeing how most of it is rubbish. Theories on abiogenesis (yes theories) are hypothesis that have tested and passed. It does not mean that that theory was the way abiogenesis occurred, but rather provides a plausible pathway. For example, RNA first theory is backed up by the creation of self replicating RNA. While the self replicating RNA strand is not life, this showed how RNA might be the first reproducer on the way of life. This is why it's a theory. If they failed to create a self replicating RNA strand or if it was shown to be infeasible, it would be a failed hypothesis.

There are many other theories, some more viable than others, some with more stronger than others. It's all very interesting stuff, and even if you don't accept abiogenesis, just read about it, it's science. It's cool!