evolution question

[ecco]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?

Not a scientist and don't know.

However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

I see no reason to believe that those same processes are not occurring today.

 

[myarogancewasblottedout]

dunno, are you talking to a screen?
I don't get why you cant do 'apologetics' here, because there is no contradiction between truth and Holy Bible's truth, and no contradiction between truth and true "observable" science...
consider the sentence "there's no contradiction between objective (real) truth and x's truth"... there is a myriad of examples which can prove this statement correct... only you need to know and understand both the example (first hand account), or why the example was given(motive can often a key to understanding the author).
=====update========
For instance i think the key to having faith in first page of Holy Bible, is to understand what a week is in science. and then look at the fouth day defined in Genesis/1-14. how is anything existing defined?
Otherwise you have to see it through the eyes of our common ancestor

 

[[serious]]

Problem:
Any conditions conducive to the formation of the components of life are deadly to life.

Depends on the life. We do quite well with the whole oxygen thing. Obligate anaerobes, not so much.

 

[cuja1]

dunno, are you talking to a screen?
I don't get why you cant do 'apologetics' here, because there is no contradiction between truth and Holy Bible's truth, and no contradiction between truth and true "observable" science...
consider the sentence "there's no contradiction between objective (real) truth and x's truth"... there is a myriad of examples which can prove this statement correct... only you need to know and understand both the example (first hand account), or why the example was given(motive can often a key to understanding the author).

Personally, I think it be nice to keep the creation vs. evolution out of this section. There's more than enough places on this site to have that debate. And the way one man understands the Bible isn't the way another man understands the Bible, so what you think is truth may in fact not be.

 

[ecco]

Personally, I think it be nice to keep the creation vs. evolution out of this section. There's more than enough places on this site to have that debate. And the way one man understands the Bible isn't the way another man understands the Bible, so what you think is truth may in fact not be.

It is all about interpretation, isn't it?

 

[cuja1]

It is all about interpretation, isn't it?

indeed

 

[bhsmte]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?

Nothing to do, with evolution.

 

[Strathos]

Not a scientist and don't know.

However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

I see no reason to believe that those same processes are not occurring today.

In order for something to evolve, it has to:

A. Reproduce
B. Pass on its characteristics to its descendants
C. Mutate (have variations in its offspring)

 

[Loudmouth]

Not a scientist and don't know.

However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Do you think we have to understand abiogenesis before we can conclude that germs cause infectious diseases?

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

Evolution works through heredity and competition, two things that don't happen in abiogenesis. The mechanisms that drive evolution were not present during abiogenesis. The two processes are different.

 

[ecco]

ecco: No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

In order for something to evolve, it has to:

A. Reproduce
B. Pass on its characteristics to its descendants
C. Mutate (have variations in its offspring)

I was talking about life, not evolution.

 

[RickG]

ecco: No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".



I was talking about life, not evolution.

Really, the why did you say this?

"However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

I see no reason to believe that those same processes are not occurring today."
​

 

[ecco]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?​

ecco said in response to the above...

Not a scientist and don't know.

However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

I see no reason to believe that those same processes are not occurring today.​

Do you think we have to understand abiogenesis before we can conclude that germs cause infectious diseases?

No. Never said that.

Evolution works through heredity and competition, two things that don't happen in abiogenesis. The mechanisms that drive evolution were not present during abiogenesis. The two processes are different.

Then you can show, definitively, what the things leading up to but not including, life are. IOW what is the step immediately before "life".

 

[RickG]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?​

​

I don't see anything that would prevent abiogenesis from occurring today or anytime since when it first happened. The conditions for life are exponentially better now than when it first occurred. However, that's just my opinion.

 

[ecco]

Really, the why did you say this?

"However, I am not a fan of separating abiogenesis from evolution. No one has been able to draw firm, consistent line between "life" and "non-life".

Personally, I think it is just one continuous, ongoing process. Protrons, neutrons and electrons combine and become atoms. Atoms combine and become molecules. Molecules combine and...

I see no reason to believe that those same processes are not occurring today."
​

The processes leading to "life". "Life" which still needs to be definitively defined.

 

[RickG]

The processes leading to "life". "Life" which still needs to be definitively defined.

Start here:

http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v11/n5/full/nmeth.2893.html
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/4/313/htm
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...e_on_Earth/links/00b7d520312842b7d6000000.pdf

 

[ecco]

Start here:

http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v11/n5/full/nmeth.2893.html
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/4/313/htm
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...e_on_Earth/links/00b7d520312842b7d6000000.pdf

Make a statement, in your own words, stating your position. Then, if you want, post one link supporting your position and quote from that link.

Too often people just post links and then later say "YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE".

 

[1213]

Why should it be easy? We are talking about a series of chemical reactions that required a vessel the size of Earth and millions of years to occur. One flask in a lab that sits for a couple of weeks isn't even close.

It should be easy, because in laboratory, it is easy to set environment to be suitable for life to born, if it is truly possible that lifeless material could turn into life spontaneously.

If material really has that ability, it can be seen in nature same way as every other ability in nature. Or what do you think; would you believe in gravity, if things would not fall as the theory claims?

If the life form is not earth size, it should be possible to form in smaller place. I have understood that the first living things were really small. So it should be possible to create them in small laboratory, if it is really possible.

Also, I don’t see any reason to assume that the first life form needed millions of years to begin to life. All life that we can observe is instant and lives only short time. It would not be reasonable to think that the first life form would have been much different.

 

[Loudmouth]

It should be easy, because in laboratory, it is easy to set environment to be suitable for life to born, if it is truly possible that lifeless material could turn into life spontaneously.

What if that environment requires volumes the size of oceans? If the reactions leading to life are exceedingly rare, then it need these types of volumes to increase the number of reactions. You also need long time periods in order to lower the probability of these reactions happening. It is no different than trying to win the lottery. The chances of someone winning become inevitable when the number of tickets gets into the hundreds of millions.

If material really has that ability, it can be seen in nature same way as every other ability in nature. Or what do you think; would you believe in gravity, if things would not fall as the theory claims?

Do you believe that life is created even though we don't see any deities creating life?

 

[whois]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?

no, science has been unable to demonstrate life from nonlife.
some will object on the grounds that the initial conditions were unknown but yet hail miller-urey as a triumph.

the initial conditions isn't so much the problem, it's the extraordinary difficulty of the problem itself.
a series of exceedingly unlikely step are required for the first life.
some scientist call the first life a "seeming miracle".

 

[RickG]

Make a statement, in your own words, stating your position. Then, if you want, post one link supporting your position and quote from that link.

Too often people just post links and then later say "YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE".

I sourced all three before posting the links. You must be talking about the middle one which relates to abiogeneses rather than discusses its origins. I included it to provide a broad perspective. Perhaps someone more qualified than me will post some additional links for you; I am not a biologist, rather a chemist.