Repeated Abiogenesis?

[The Paul]

So the common understanding of abiogenesis is that it happened the once, and that single line of replicators produced all life.

Obviously if it happened again today modern organisms would just devour the proto-organisms without anyone ever knowing, but if it happened more than once at the dawn of life on Earth, and more than one line survived to the present day, would things look any different than they do? Would there be any way to know?

DNA-to-Protein translation is pretty much universal, but is that because it appeared the one time with an arbitrary pattern, locked in, and never changed, or because there's a best way to do it, and after 4 billion years or so, everything's settled up to that same spot?

I remember reading about some experiments involving a team trying to produce cells that only used 8 amino acids, and they could only get it down to 12, because the mutants they were generating were quickly re-evolving lost acids back in. Amino acids from the basic 20 everything uses. Not new, weird alien amino acids.

 

[good brother]

So the common understanding of abiogenesis is that it happened the once, and that single line of replicators produced all life.

Obviously if it happened again today modern organisms would just devour the proto-organisms without anyone ever knowing...

How would one know that if abiogenesis happened again, instead of being "devoured" by the modern organisms, that they weren't just a newly discovered- formerly unkown- species? How do you know that your, say dog, is not just a brand new evolved organism that popped into being instead of a line of dog that can trace it's roots clear back to 1 billion BC? And since everyone knows how well a dog's body works for a dog, then it would be an obvious conclusion that this new proto organism mimicked the current representative of the canine family?


In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

So the common understanding of abiogenesis is that it happened the once, and that single line of replicators produced all life.

Obviously if it happened again today modern organisms would just devour the proto-organisms without anyone ever knowing, but if it happened more than once at the dawn of life on Earth, and more than one line survived to the present day, would things look any different than they do? Would there be any way to know?

DNA-to-Protein translation is pretty much universal, but is that because it appeared the one time with an arbitrary pattern, locked in, and never changed, or because there's a best way to do it, and after 4 billion years or so, everything's settled up to that same spot?

I remember reading about some experiments involving a team trying to produce cells that only used 8 amino acids, and they could only get it down to 12, because the mutants they were generating were quickly re-evolving lost acids back in. Amino acids from the basic 20 everything uses. Not new, weird alien amino acids.

I would think that abiogenesis produced more than one type of replicator, and only one basic type survived. But that is a guess on my part. I'm sure there were constaints as well, however.

 

[Split Rock]

How would one know that if abiogenesis happened again, instead of being "devoured" by the modern organisms, that they weren't just a newly discovered- formerly unkown- species? How do you know that your, say dog, is not just a brand new evolved organism that popped into being instead of a line of dog that can trace it's roots clear back to 1 billion BC? And since everyone knows how well a dog's body works for a dog, then it would be an obvious conclusion that this new proto organism mimicked the current representative of the canine family?


In Christ, GB

Because all life on earth follows the same basic biochemistry and the same genetic code. Also, abiogenesis will never produce a dog like animal. That requires quite a bit of evolution. Dog-like animals do not "pop" into existance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dog-like animals do not "pop" into existance.

Um ... where was Pluto prior to 1930?

 

[Orogeny]

Nobody said anything about dog-like illustrations, AV.

 

[The Paul]

How would one know that if abiogenesis happened again, instead of being "devoured" by the modern organisms, that they weren't just a newly discovered- formerly unkown- species? How do you know that your, say dog, is not just a brand new evolved organism that popped into being instead of a line of dog that can trace it's roots clear back to 1 billion BC? And since everyone knows how well a dog's body works for a dog, then it would be an obvious conclusion that this new proto organism mimicked the current representative of the canine family?


In Christ, GB

...because we're talking about biology and not tyranids.

 

[pgp_protector]

Um ... where was Pluto prior to 1930?

What exact Date & Time are you looking for?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody said anything about dog-like illustrations, AV.

Okay, sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

What exact Date & Time are you looking for?

31 December 1929 @ 23:59:59:59

 

[SithDoughnut]

31 December 1929 @ 23:59:59:59

Then it was a short distance away from its position one second later.

 

[good brother]

Because all life on earth follows the same basic biochemistry and the same genetic code. Also, abiogenesis will never produce a dog like animal. That requires quite a bit of evolution. Dog-like animals do not "pop" into existance.

Where did the "dog like animal" come from according to evolution? Didn't it come from an animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a single celled organism that popped into existence one sunny day 4.5 billion years ago? Or was it cloudy that day? Yes, it was cloudy, because there was a lightning strike that gave the energy to the ingredients in the mud puddle so that they could get together in all the right sequencing to produce a creature (albeit a single celled creature) that could design, feed, replicate itself, and mutate when needed to become something bigger and better.

Evolution is a joke when one applies the same "standards" of evolution to another area.

In Christ, GB

 

[Orogeny]

That is a gross caricaturization of both evolution and abiogenesis. While not all together surprising from a YEC, it is nevertheless disappointing to see people put so little effort into actually understanding the concepts before ridiculing them.

 

[RickG]

Evolution is a joke when one applies the same "standards" of evolution to another area.

In Christ, GB

Then why is it that we don't find all forms of life in the same geologic strata? Why is it that they are laid out perfectly without compromise to perfectly describe evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it was a short distance away from its position one second later.

-- Orogeny gets my point; it looks like you don't.

You apparently think I'm talking about that dwarf planet, aren't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why is it that we don't find all forms of life in the same geologic strata? Why is it that they are laid out perfectly without compromise to perfectly describe evolution?

The description came after the bones in the earth and rock -- not before.

If I threw a bunch of sticks into the air and walked off, then someone comes along and looks at them and says, "Hey! Look at this! Someone placed these sticks here in a dyphom configuration!"; he would be wrong.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Where did the "dog like animal" come from according to evolution? Didn't it come from an animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a single celled organism that popped into existence one sunny day 4.5 billion years ago? Or was it cloudy that day? Yes, it was cloudy, because there was a lightning strike that gave the energy to the ingredients in the mud puddle so that they could get together in all the right sequencing to produce a creature (albeit a single celled creature) that could design, feed, replicate itself, and mutate when needed to become something bigger and better.

Evolution is a joke when one applies the same "standards" of evolution to another area.

In Christ, GB

My advice to you would be to look and see what scientists actually claim about evolution, rather than repeating things other creationists have told you.

If you honestly want to learn what we're saying, feel free to go through this tutorial from UC Berkeley's evolutionary biology department:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[mathclub]

How would one know that if abiogenesis happened again, instead of being "devoured" by the modern organisms, that they weren't just a newly discovered- formerly unkown- species? How do you know that your, say dog, is not just a brand new evolved organism that popped into being instead of a line of dog that can trace it's roots clear back to 1 billion BC? And since everyone knows how well a dog's body works for a dog, then it would be an obvious conclusion that this new proto organism mimicked the current representative of the canine family?


In Christ, GB

the lack of scientific understanding that many religious people show on these forums is honestly disturbing to me.

You realise that you can still believe in whatever god you want, AND have a realistic grasp on the world around you and how it works at the same time?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

the lack of scientific understanding that many religious people show on these forums is honestly disturbing to me.

You realise that you can still believe in whatever god you want, AND have a realistic grasp on the world around you and how it works at the same time?

This point can't be stressed enough. None of us here are trying to deconvert Christians with evolution. We just want to combat the very prevalent ignorance of the science. You can be religious and an acceptor of science.

 

[mathclub]

Where did the "dog like animal" come from according to evolution? Didn't it come from an animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a "lesser" animal that came from a single celled organism that popped into existence one sunny day 4.5 billion years ago? Or was it cloudy that day? Yes, it was cloudy, because there was a lightning strike that gave the energy to the ingredients in the mud puddle so that they could get together in all the right sequencing to produce a creature (albeit a single celled creature) that could design, feed, replicate itself, and mutate when needed to become something bigger and better.

Evolution is a joke when one applies the same "standards" of evolution to another area.

In Christ, GB

you realise that evolution has nothing to do with where life came from, right?