: The Truth

[Flaming Blaze]

Well, for one thing, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago.

 

Here is a little information on abiogenesis.

Proteins make up most of living matter, which are long chains of amino acids. It has been known since 1930 that amino acids cannot link up if there is oxygen present.

 

An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that "imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers."
-Philip Morrison, "Earth's Earliest Biosphere," Scientific America, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp.30-31.

 

I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts uw--the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].
-George Wald, "The Origin of Life," p. 50.

 

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.
-D.E. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

 

For evolution to work it has to have a begining.

This debate is about Abiogenesis(The origins of life).

 

[Morat]

  Comments:

   Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the appearance of modern forms from inanimate substances. Abiogenesis does not require either.

   Your statement of "for evolution to work, there must be a beginning" is false.

   Evolution requires only a small pool of simple proto-cells. Period. How they got there is immaterial. Aliens could have placed them there. Doesn't matter. Evolution deals with things from there.

   Abiogenesis deals with the step from chemical processes to life.

  Third, I suggest you find more..up-to-date material. Most abiogenesis research has occured in the last decade, as the tools to perform biochemistry of that complexity are very new. You might ask yourself why your source uses a 20 year old and a 40 year old quote, as opposed to something more recent.

 

[FordPrefect]

"For evolution to work it has to have a begining."\

No one is denying that. Nor is the nature of the beginning at all relevant to the ToE. ToE simply describes and wraps up all the evidence found for the continually changing types of organisms.

 

[FordPrefect]

Ah, man, not only did I simul post, but I had to do it with Morat...

well kids, now you can see the diffs between good posting and not so good posting

 

[Flaming Blaze]

First I wanted to apologize for this threads name.  I meant to name it Abiogenesis but I deleted the wrong part.

 

Originally posted by Morat

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the appearance of modern forms from inanimate substances. Abiogenesis does not require either.

 

Actually, this is the definition of Abiogenesis...

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

I got this from dictionary.com.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Abiogenesis

I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis. --Huxley, 1870

 

Actually, these things have never changed since they were published.  They are still considered accurate.

 

[Morat]

Actually, this is the definition of Abiogenesis...

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called <B>autogenesis, spontaneous generation</B>.

I got this from dictionary.com.

target=_blank&gt;http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Abiogenesis

<I>I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis. --Huxley, 1870</I>

<I></I>&nbsp;

Actually,&nbsp;these things have never changed since they were published.&nbsp; They are still considered accurate.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Wow. A dictionary, huh? Do you define all your science terms with a dictionary? I hope not, because there's going to be a lot you don't understand.&nbsp;Dictionaries record common usuage.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Wikpedia offers a much better look, for a layman.

Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origins of life.

Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts (referred to here as "Aristotelian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur.

The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment.

...

Aristotelian abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation, (and, in older texts, Generatio acquivoca, Generatio primaria, archegenesis and archebiosis), was the theory according to which fully formed living organisms sometimes arise from not-living matter. Aristotle explicitly taught this form of abiogenesis, and laid it down as an observed fact that some animals spring from putrid matter, that plant lice arise from the dew which falls on plants, that fleas are developed from putrid matter, and so forth
...
Even as Aristotelian abiogenesis was being disproven, many scientists, such as T. H. Huxley, continued to postulate a "primordial archebiosis", in which the living organisms observed in the present world had originally arisen in a series of stages from non-living matter. Such scientists pointed out that the disproof of Aristotelian abiogenesis applied only to "known existing organisms", not to unknown forms of life or proto-life which may have existed under the vastly different conditions of the early Earth.

Recent experiments have shown that under simulated conditions resembling those thought to have existed shortly after Earth first solidified, many of the basic organic molecules that form the building blocks of modern life are able to spontaneously form. Simple organic molecules are of course a far cry from a fully functional self-replicating life form, but in an environment with no pre-existing life these molecules could accumulate and provide a rich environment for chemical evolution. The spontaneous formation of complex polymers from abiotically generated monomers under these conditions is straightforward.

There are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken from simple organic molecules to modern cells and metabolism. The RNA world hypothesis, for example, suggests that short RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed that would then catalyze their own continuing replication. Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, protein-like molecules that are produced when amino acid solutions are heated. Other possibilities include systems of chemical reactions taking place within clay substrates or on the surface of pyrite rocks. None of these various hypotheses have strong evidence behind them at this time, however. Many of them can be simulated and tested in the lab, but a lack of undisturbed sedimentary rock from that early in Earth's history leaves few opportunities to determine what may have actually happened in practice.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you see the problem here, Blaze? Sponteanous generation is a specific idea. One that is false.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Abiogenesis is another idea. Your conflation of the two is akin to claiming relativity is false because there is no aether.

&nbsp;

 

[jon1101]

To flaming blaze's credit, there was&nbsp;a quote&nbsp;by Huxley, who was an influential thinker. Despite this, I think that abiogenesis has probably had some alteration of its definition since 1890.

-jon

 

[ocean]

Spontaneous generation is pure superstition. It is false. Abiogenesis may be false, but then it may be true. That's what science is all about. Coming up with explanations and then testing them to see if they're true.

Notice how abiogenesis is not called a "theory"? It's not a theory because it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution has.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

"Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origins of life."

Hmm.&nbsp; Spontaneous Generation.

"...in which the living organisms observed in the present world had originally arisen in a series of stages from non-living matter. Such scientists pointed out that the disproof of Aristotelian abiogenesis applied only to "known existing organisms", not to unknown forms of life or proto-life which may have existed under the vastly different conditions of the early Earth."

Well like I quoted...

An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that "imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers."
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -Philip Morrison, "Earth's Earliest Biosphere," Scientific America, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp.30-31.

In other words the early bioshere of the earth did not have the right conditions for life to begin.

Everyone agrees there is water on Earth, right?

This means no matter what there has to be oxygen.&nbsp; You see the sun heats up the Earth and water evaporates.&nbsp; So now you have hydrogen and oxygen floating around.&nbsp; Since hydrogen in the lightest element some of it leaves the Earths atmoshere and escapes into space leaving the oxygen.&nbsp;&nbsp;And that brings us to the fact that amino acids don't link up when oxygen is present.

&nbsp;

Miller's experiment...

For one thing, Miller's experiment is a joke.&nbsp; The experiment did not model Earth's early atmosphere.&nbsp; They had stacked the odds to their favor in the begining.&nbsp; They knew oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen would not create life so they started with gases they knew would have a positive out come.&nbsp; Also, something not often discused about the experiment, is the fact that the amino acids created were not the right ones to start life.&nbsp; They didn't even have enough of the right amino acids to make one protein.

&nbsp;

Also, in most of the theories of abiogenesis I have read, life started in a pool of water teaming with the building blocks of life.&nbsp; Okay, note that amino acids don't link up when oxygen is present.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Blaze: So you have decided to drop the ludicrous claim that sponteanous generation and abiogenesis are even the same thing?

&nbsp; Blaze, honey...amino acids form easily. Even in space. And don't you think, in the last..I dunno, sixty years, they've run slightly better experiments than Miller's? Millers was famous because it was the first.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Not because it's the most accurate or the "best".

&nbsp;

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Morat
Blaze, honey...amino acids form easily. Even in space. And don't you think, in the last..I dunno, sixty years, they've run slightly better experiments than Miller's? Millers was famous because it was the first.

More then thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better percpective of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on the principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confusion of ignorance.
-Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998) p. 348

You see, there haven't been any better experiments.

 

[Morat]

You see, there haven't been any better experiments

&nbsp; I think you put the wrong quote up there. The one you gave doesn't support that statement at all.

&nbsp;

 

[Flaming Blaze]

You must have misread the quote. Try reading it slowly, word for word.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; It says nothing about experiments. It says nothing about Miller being the pinnacle of the field.

&nbsp;&nbsp; It says, quite honestly, that nothing coherent has emerged.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You draw conclusions that are unsupported from that quote. *shrug*.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Have you researched anything on abiogenesis? Read about RNA-world, for instance?

&nbsp;

 

[Flaming Blaze]

More then thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life...have led to a better percpective of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution.

In other words they haven't had any worth while experiments in the 30 or more years. All of the experiments have done nothing to bring people to a clearer understanding of the origins of life (this includes the Miller experiment). Do you understand that part?


At present all discussions on the principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confusion of ignorance.

In other words they can't figure it out.

Anyways,
Back to Abiogenesis.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Evolution requires only a small pool of simple proto-cells. Period. How they got there is immaterial.[/quote]

Any real proof of this?

Originally posted by Morat

Aliens could have placed them there. Doesn't matter. Evolution deals with things from there.

This just moves the problem elsewhere. It doesn't solve it.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

A Question to the Moderators...

Is there any way to change the subject topic?

 

[bonobo]

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
Everyone agrees there is water on Earth, right?

This means no matter what there has to be oxygen.&nbsp; You see the sun heats up the Earth and water evaporates.&nbsp; So now you have hydrogen and oxygen floating around.&nbsp; Since hydrogen in the lightest element some of it leaves the Earths atmoshere and escapes into space leaving the oxygen.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Hm, could it be that there is some misunderstanding of basic chemistry and physics? When water evaporates, it is still water, it does not split up into its components. So by evaporation of water you don't get "hydrogen and oxygen floating around".

 

[Morat]

This just moves the problem elsewhere. It doesn't solve it.

&nbsp; It's not a problem for evolution. It's not evolution's problem. Get it? This is not a hard concept. Evolution would still be just as correct if aliens stuck the cells there, if they arose naturally, if God did it, if we went back and time and placed them ourselves, or if they just *poofed* into existance.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you understand this? No matter how those first proto-cells got there, evolution is still accurate.

&nbsp;&nbsp; See? I'll even make an analogy: If the outcome of a second event is always the same, no matter the outcome of the first event, then they're unrelated.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Evolution won't change because of anything that happens in abiogenesis research. Therefore, they're unrelated.

More then thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life...have led to a better percpective of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution.

&nbsp; Translation to those who can't read it on their own: "We've worked on this problem for 30 years. We can't say that "This is the way it happened". What we do find is that the issue is vast and complex.

<I>At present all discussions on the principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confusion of ignorance.</I>

&nbsp;&nbsp; So far, nothing seems more promising than anything else.

&nbsp;&nbsp; See? Nothing about "Miller" being the pinnacle of abiogenesis research. So, did you read about RNA-world yet? Did you address my comment about amino acids forming easily in space?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course not! Both would blow your little screed to pieces!

&nbsp;

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Morat

Blaze, honey...amino acids form easily. Even in space.

If they form so easy then why is it so hard for Scientists to create them?&nbsp;&nbsp;I would think, if it is so easy to create amino acids, they would have by now, without any problems.

Also, this doesn't even cover how amino acids link up to create proteins.

Originally posted by Morat

[The quote]&nbsp;says nothing about experiments.

He was talking about there being no headway at all in the field of Abiogenesis.&nbsp; That is the main point of that entire quote.&nbsp; I am sorry that completely went over your head.

Originally posted by Morat

Hm, could it be that there is some misunderstanding of basic chemistry and physics? When water evaporates, it is still water, it does not split up into its components. So by evaporation of water you don't get "hydrogen and oxygen floating around".

Sorry about that, let me clear this up...

Solar radiation would have broken water vaper into oxygen and hydrogen.&nbsp; Some of the hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen. -R. T. Brinkmann, "Dissociation&nbsp;of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,"&nbsp;Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No.23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355-5368.

Originally posted by Morat

It's not a problem for evolution. It's not evolution's <I>problem</I>. Get it? This is not a hard concept. Evolution would still be just as correct if aliens stuck the cells there, if they arose naturally, if God did it, if we went back and time and placed them ourselves, or if they just *poofed* into existance.

The thing is, if Scientists find that abiogenesis cannot happen then there would be a problem with evolution.

There HAS to be a begining for evolution to work without a creator.

And the problem with aliens is you are just moving the problem of the begining of life elsewhere.

I would like to add,&nbsp; this is a debate about Abiogenesis(the origins of life),&nbsp;not evolution.
&nbsp;

Originally posted by Morat

So, did you read about RNA-world yet? Did you address my comment about amino acids forming easily in space?

Would you give me a good site about this, with what you want me to know.&nbsp; I would like to know what you are talking about.