Can you explain this to me? Pt2 Abiogenesis

[shernren]

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.

This is the same thing people were saying at the start of the century about plate tectonics and quantum mechanics.

Oh well. To each his own.

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...

Hey, the only real science is physics. Everything else is just stamp collecting ...

... but there are a whole lot of stamps out there.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Hey, the only real science is physics. Everything else is just stamp collecting ...

... but there are a whole lot of stamps out there.

I used to drive my Electronic Engineering professor (I was taking first term circuit analysis) nuts by claiming that EE was Maxwell's equations + fudge factors to deal with noise

Sadly my "God said [maxwell's equations]
and there was light" t-shirt has bit the dust, I've got to get another one.

 

[shernren]

I used to drive my Electronic Engineering professor (I was taking first term circuit analysis) nuts by claiming that EE was Maxwell's equations + fudge factors to deal with noise

That's brilliant. I'll have to try that in uni myself someday

 

[Redneck Crow]

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".

As I said, Poke, evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "the theory of evolution." It means a different thing when is is used in another context. Abiogenesis is a separate field from the theory of evolution.

The person I replied to in the snippet you quoted certainly didn't use "Theory of" in his question, but the literate realize that there is such a critter as context, and that was the context in which he was speaking. Rather than acting retarded and pointing out that he didn't use the entire name of the theory of evolution to discuss the theory of evolution, I took it in context, as any reasonable person would.

 

[pastorkevin73]

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.

I read the link. I believe I understand it, but will refrain from commenting. At this point I am not interested in debating, just asking questions to see what is out there and what theory each poster favors. With that said I have two more questions.

1) Does all biology have "life," i.e. a living function?
2) Is there any element to chemistry that has "life"?

 

[artybloke]

I read the link. I believe I understand it, but will refrain from commenting. At this point I am not interested in debating, just asking questions to see what is out there and what theory each poster favors. With that said I have two more questions.

1) Does all biology have "life," i.e. a living function?
2) Is there any element to chemistry that has "life"?

1) Biology is the study of living things. So yes.

2) Your body is made up of chemicals that daily react with one another. So yes.

 

[pastorkevin73]

2) Your body is made up of chemicals that daily react with one another. So yes.

Is the same true outside of the human and animals bodies and plant life? Could you give some specifics?

 

[artybloke]

Is the same true outside of the human and animals bodies and plant life? Could you give some specifics?

When two chemical elements mix anywhere in the universe there is a chemical reaction. Try pouring phosphorus into water, for instance.

When the chemicals in plants meet light you get photo-synthesis.

One's not alive, one is. What makes the plant alive is not the chemical reactions that lead to photosynthesis, but the chemistry of DNA reproduction, and the presence of such chemicals as proteins. Chemistry again. And physics, because of course everything that exists as part of this universe has to obey this universe's physical laws.

Physics, chemistry and biology are just different ways of describing life, scientifically. Science, of course, isn't concerned with spirituality and can't test for such things as "soul" or "spirit" because it can't measure it.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I understand that there is a theory that life began through a chemical reaction of non-living matter. How viable is this?

 

[random_guy]

I understand that there is a theory that life began through a chemical reaction of non-living matter. How viable is this?

I think you're referring to abiogenesis. There are many different hypothesis on abiogenesis, some have more evidence than others. Of course, no theory on abiogenesis will ever be able to say, "This is the correct pathway that life took" since it was far too long ago and microfossil records of the first life doesn't exist. The best thing that scientists can do is try to find possible pathways that life may have come about.

 

[Smidlee]

The biggest problem I see with abiogenesis and all it's studies is it doesn't address the real problem.
Amino acids + proteins + RNA + DNA + the kitchen sink doesn't equal a living cell. Except for the kitchen sink a dead cell has all the parts that a living cell has but there is no known natural or artificial way of bring a dead cell back to life. Once a cell dies it stays dead. So IMO all these theory of how earth could produce the parts of a cell is totally worthless until it shown how a make a dead cell alive. Thus a living cell is more than all it's part.

 

[random_guy]

The biggest problem I see with abiogenesis and all it's studies is it doesn't address the real problem.
Amino acids + proteins + RNA + DNA + the kitchen sink doesn't equal a living cell. Except for the kitchen sink a dead cell has all the parts that a living cell has but there is no known natural or artificial way of bring a dead cell back to life. Once a cell dies it stays dead. So IMO all these theory of how earth could produce the parts of a cell is totally worthless until it shown how a make a dead cell alive. Thus a living cell is more than all it's part.

Of course. Right now, there's no solid theory of abiogenesis because there's progress has been slow. No one is saying this is exactly how it happened because no one knows how it happened. What they have proposed are possible pathways. For example, scientists found how RNA can act as an enzyme to replicate itself. It's a small part of a larger puzzle that they're still trying to piece together. That's what makes abiogenesis research exciting. However, it doesn't mean that abiogenesis is a bunk and that God did it. That's just the God of Gaps argument, and if scientists ever do create artificial life, it just shrinks that person's God.

 

[notto]

The biggest problem I see with abiogenesis and all it's studies is it doesn't address the real problem.
Amino acids + proteins + RNA + DNA + the kitchen sink doesn't equal a living cell. Except for the kitchen sink a dead cell has all the parts that a living cell has but there is no known natural or artificial way of bring a dead cell back to life. Once a cell dies it stays dead. So IMO all these theory of how earth could produce the parts of a cell is totally worthless until it shown how a make a dead cell alive. Thus a living cell is more than all it's part.

This assumes that the path to life was in animating a fully functional cell as we know it today. I don't think that any of the currently pursued ideas related to abiogenesis suggest this and it is basically a strawman.

Animating a dead cell would not really do much to point us in the right direction of how life began. The earth didn't produce 'parts' of a living cell and then put it together and animate it. The chemimistry of self replicating molecules found an environment that led through steps that eventually led to the cell. There are many gradients of what a 'cell' could be considered and even many gradients of what can be considered life. Not all of them look like the cells you seem to be suggesting we should be able to reanimate.

 

[pastorkevin73]

If you do not believe that God formed Adam out of the dust and breathed life into him; How do you explain the first life come into being?

 

[random_guy]

If you do not believe that God formed Adam out of the dust and breathed life into him; How do you explain the first life come into being?

Did the Bible say exactly how God created life? Perhaps life begetting from "dust" isn't too far from the truth, but I digress. What you're arguing is called the "God of Gaps" argument or an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because scientists aren't sure how life first came about, doesn't mean "God did it" is more valid. It just means we don't know right now, which is a perfectly acceptable answer in science.

 

[Smidlee]

Did the Bible say exactly how God created life? Perhaps life begetting from "dust" isn't too far from the truth, but I digress. What you're arguing is called the "God of Gaps" argument or an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because scientists aren't sure how life first came about, doesn't mean "God did it" is more valid. It just means we don't know right now, which is a perfectly acceptable answer in science.

But it's now evolutionist who argues "Evolution of Gaps" and heavily depends on ignorance, not those who argues design (God fingerprint in nature). It's because of our knowledge not the lack of it which causes huge problems with abiogenesis. and the more we learn the worst it gets.
It's exactly the same with space travel. It's because of our knowledge of physics, not the lack of it, that makes space travel remain in Sci Fi. If anyone notice in the last few decades of Sci-fi they have done away with traveling from point A to Point B (like the old Star Trek and Star Wars) but uses other means of travel like wormholes. This is because of our knowledge we now know we have to come up with a new set of law of physics (it's more than just learning new techology) to make space travel possible since all the known laws make it nearly impossible.
The same with those who support abiogenesis who believes by faith the nature is it's own creator and someday we will find some unknown law of physics which will explain everything and fill those huge gaps between soup to a living cell.

 

[random_guy]

But it's now evolutionist who argues "Evolution of Gaps" and heavily depends on ignorance, not those who argues design (God fingerprint in nature). It's because of our knowledge not the lack of it which causes huge problems with abiogenesis. and the more we learn the worst it gets.
It's exactly the same with space travel. It's because of our knowledge of physics, not the lack of it, that makes space travel remain in Sci Fi. If anyone notice in the last few decades of Sci-fi they have done away with traveling from point A to Point B (like the old Star Trek and Star Wars) but uses other means of travel like wormholes. This is because of our knowledge we now know we have to come up with a new set of law of physics (it's more than just learning new techology) to make space travel possible since all the known laws make it nearly impossible.
The same with those who support abiogenesis who believes by faith the nature is it's own creator and someday we will find some unknown law of physics which will explain everything and fill those huge gaps between soup to a living cell.

What in the world are you talking about? Worm holes? I think you've been watching too much Star Trek. Here's some neat information, Star Trek is not based on real science.

Anyway, whether you believe God created life or life came from non-life, abiogenesis occurred. There's no doubt in that (since we're alive). However, abiogenesis isn't just the study of how life arose on Earth, it's the study of how life can arise from non-life. Not only that, it's not faith based, as you think. If it was, it wouldn't be scientific. Scientists have run many experiments, each one filling a small gap in a larger puzzle. For example, we've discovered that RNA can act as a self catalyst. We discovered how protocells may form under certain conditions.

That's filling in the gaps of our knowledge. If we take the Creationists approach, we'd just throw our hands in the air, say "God did it" and never even try to study abiogenesis, which may be relevant when we start searching for life on other planets.

 

[Smidlee]

What in the world are you talking about? Worm holes? I think you've been watching too much Star Trek. Here's some neat information, Star Trek is not based on real science.

Anyway, whether you believe God created life or life came from non-life, abiogenesis occurred. There's no doubt in that (since we're alive). However, abiogenesis isn't just the study of how life arose on Earth, it's the study of how life can arise from non-life. Not only that, it's not faith based, as you think. If it was, it wouldn't be scientific. Scientists have run many experiments, each one filling a small gap in a larger puzzle. For example, we've discovered that RNA can act as a self catalyst. We discovered how protocells may form under certain conditions.

And if we can fold time and space we could form a wormhole like in StarGate too. RNA is still a long way for a living cell and also RNA world has some serious problems of it own. Also it's a fact that something of faith can be call science. Just because it called science doesn't mean it is. Even if you exclude the origin of life from evolution there is still other origins that gives the theory serious trouble.

I do believe the dead can be raised but it's beyond the reach of science

That's filling in the gaps of our knowledge. If we take the Creationists approach, we'd just throw our hands in the air, say "God did it" and never even try to study abiogenesis, which may be relevant when we start searching for life on other planets.

We wouldn't just throw our hands in the air but redirect the money to something more productive. abiogenesis so far has been nothing but "junk science" just as "cold fusion". IMO Evolution/abiogenesis has become a tradition (a dogma) which too many scientist today have went too far to turn back from their dogma. Creationists have been mock as anti-science / fools for so long there's no way a evolutionists would admit that creationists were right about anything.

 

[random_guy]

And if we can fold time and space we could form a wormhole like in StarGate too. RNA is still a long way for a living cell and also RNA world has some serious problems of it own. Also it's a fact that something of faith can be call science. Just because it called science doesn't mean it is. Even if you exclude the origin of life from evolution there is still other origins that gives the theory serious trouble. I do believe the dead can be raised but it's beyond the reach of science

And people used to believe it would be impossible to make biological circuits, but we're doing it right now. Explain to me how finding self catalyzing RNA is junk science? What about finding out that organic molecules can form from aorganic material? You seem to not understand science builds upon itself, and every discover leads to new discovers. Perhaps that's the reason why there are so few Creationist scientists, they don't appreciate or understand how science works.

.We wouldn't throw our hands in the air but redirect the money to something more productive. abiogenesis so far has been nothing but "junk science" just as "cold fusion". Evolution/abiogenesis has become a tradition (a dogma) which too many scientist today have went too far to turn back from their dogma. Creationists have been mock as anti-science / fools for so long there's no way a evolutionists would admit that creationists were right about anything.

Basically, you do throw your hands in the air and say "God did it". By saying, don't research this area, you're giving up. Again, explain how finding self catalyzing RNA is like cold fusion, or creating protocells is junk science? Explain to me which laws of physics are being violated when we research abiogenesis (unlike cold fusion). Explain to me which scientists are doctoring reports like the scientists did for cold fusion? Explain to me which research in abiogenesis is unreproducible, like in cold fusion. It seems to me that people who understand nothing of science are quick to label things as junk when they have no idea what science actually is. Of course scientists tend to mock Creationists, they are the blocks that stand in the way of science.

Remember, abiogensis is very new compared to evolution, so we don't have all the answers yet. But until you can tell me why experiments like the Urey-Miller experiment is "cold fusion", you're just labelling things junk just because you don't understand what it actually means.

 

[notto]

RNA is still a long way for a living cell and also RNA world has some serious problems of it own.

Therefore science should stop looking and claim we have the answer? That is a classic God of the Gaps approach and hasn't been real successful in the past.

Also it's a fact that something of faith can be call science. Just because it called science doesn't mean it is. Even if you exclude the origin of life from evolution there is still other origins that gives the theory serious trouble.

So we should stop? Science has a great way of answering questions that works well. Why not use it to continue to look for answers.?As far as what is and isn't science, that definition is very clear. What serious problem or non-scientific methodology are you suggesting related to the theory of evolution? Can you be more specific? Can you point us to some sources or research where this problem is apparent?

I do believe the dead can be raised but it's beyond the reach of science

Good thing that has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

We wouldn't throw our hands in the air but redirect the money to something more productive. abiogenesis so far has been nothing but "junk science" just as "cold fusion".

What have you read on the subject? What research has been done that you feel hasn't been worthwhile? Can you be specific and cite a few studies?

Evolution/abiogenesis has become a tradition (a dogma) which too many scientist today have went too far to turn back from their dogma. Creationists have been mock as anti-science / fools for so long there's no way a evolutionists would admit that creationists were right about anything.

When creationists can scientificically show that they are 'right', scientists will take notice. Rants about 'dogma' or claiming scientific study is faith or not science or unproductive or suggesting that we should just give up on looking for answers won't do it and only confirms what is said about creationists. They have no real interest in science but only in supporting their own dogma even if they need to avoid actual scientific methodology to do so.