Thoughts on Abiogenesis

[Shemjaza]

if I leave a piece of meat out and let it rot to discover it's then covered in maggots where did the maggots come from? did the inanimate meat spontaneously generate the maggots? that's what this argument amounts to. every inanimate to animate conversion is explained through a self-contained process that is dependant upon the animate. your argument demonstrates the conversion in a vacuum where life pre-exists but does not address outside the vacuum. the same logic could be used to point to an outside influence.

The point is that all the steps that convert nonliving matter into living in existing life forms matter are known and biochemical in nature. There isn't a step that requites the injection of life force or any process not seen in the unliving production of plastics or amino acids.

 

[DamianWarS]

Check this out .. no animate chemicals are required as reactants .. yet the reaction product is visibly animate!

(The more technical explanation is here).

how is the reaction produced? by introducing an outside force.

 

[Occams Barber]

if I leave a piece of meat out and let it rot to discover it's then covered in maggots where did the maggots come from? did the inanimate meat spontaneously generate the maggots? that's what this argument amounts to. every inanimate to animate conversion is explained through a self-contained process that is dependant upon the animate. your argument demonstrates the conversion in a vacuum where life pre-exists but does not address outside the vacuum. the same logic could be used to point to an outside influence.

Do you believe there was a point in time where there was no life on Earth?

If 'yes' - how did life on Earth originate?

OB

 

[DamianWarS]

The point is that all the steps that convert nonliving matter into living in existing life forms matter are known and biochemical in nature. There isn't a step that requites the injection of life force or any process not seen in the unliving production of plastics or amino acids.

then this is just a superficial discussion. at some point, there was no life, and then there was life but this discussion doesn't go that deep. we can talk about seeds and trees or inanimate converting to animate forever but none of that genuinely bridges the gap of life from a state of no life as they are all based on self-contained processes in a vacuum.

 

[Vap841]

your argument demonstrates the conversion in a vacuum where life pre-exists but does not address outside the vacuum.

This conversion that you speak of, it transforms things into that which gets simply pulled & pushed by certain laws of nature (like rocks) into things that still get pulled and pushed by laws of nature (automated bodily functions) but in addition they adopt this additional non-automation quality, the ability to decide which bodily functions fire off. Here’s my question, when I decide to hop on my left leg and sing Sinatra for no apparent reason why should the first physical neurological action that allows it to happen even take place? Surely there isn’t a law of nature that demands it. Nothing in scientific law should be amping up a neurological potential event to fire up a sequence of me hoping on my leg and singing. I figure that if anything blind matter in motion according to physical laws would only dictate that I simply lay stationary (maybe still blink) until I die of thirst. There’s some sort of disruptive influence over pure laws of nature that’s called decision making or will.

 

[SelfSim]

how is the reaction produced? by introducing an outside force.

Starts with an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide, an iodate, manganese (Mn2+) as catalyst, a strong chemically unreactive acid (sulphuric acid or perchloric acid are good), and an organic compound with an active hydrogen atom attached to carbon, which then slowly reduces the free iodine (I2) to iodide (I−). None of this requires any living substances/organisms (ie: if that's what you mean by 'an outside force').
Yet .. I'd still say it is visibly, animated ..

 

[DamianWarS]

If 'yes' - how did life on Earth originate?

OB

through causation

 

[Bradskii]

There’s some sort of disruptive influence over pure laws of nature that’s called decision making or will.

That would be feedback from external and internal sources. Which then prompts unconscious and conscious decision making. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if 'free will' prompts the action. It could be that my body recognises it needs liquid and so prompts me to go to the fridge and 'I' go along with that decision.

 

[Vap841]

That would be feedback from external and internal sources. Which then prompts unconscious and conscious decision making. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if 'free will' prompts the action. It could be that my body recognises it needs liquid and so prompts me to go to the fridge and 'I' go along with that decision.

Yeah like I MIGHT be able to understand a world full of Vulcans where bodily actions are totally logical and parsimonious, where getting up to get water might make sense (although I’d run into problems if Vulcans had originality and personality). But for me all bets are off with our idiot human race of pure illogical nonsense lol. I can stand up and drive my head through the window right now if I wanted to. I think that it all begins with a polarity build up inside of a neuron, which causes a bodily function to commence, an action potential. I’m at a complete loss why any scientific rule would rev up a neurological action potential in my body that would result in me hoping on one leg and singing Sinatra. Much less accompanied by a (false) mental belief that I chose to do so.

 

[Occams Barber]

through causation

That's a bit like saying it originated because it did.

What, in your opinion, caused it to originate?

OB

 

[DamianWarS]

That's a bit like saying it originated because it did.

What, in your opinion, caused it to originate?

OB

it's more like saying there is a source behind it. I'm agnostic to the specifics and I have no problem following an evolutionary process to describe life, it's just that the process was caused, not unlike your seed analogy that was also caused. the seed was caused by the tree... the life on earth was caused by the .... 'I dunno' except that eventually, I believe in a theistic source as the cause.

 

[DamianWarS]

Starts with an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide, an iodate, manganese (Mn2+) as catalyst, a strong chemically unreactive acid (sulphuric acid or perchloric acid are good), and an organic compound with an active hydrogen atom attached to carbon, which then slowly reduces the free iodine (I2) to iodide (I−). None of this requires any living substances/organisms (ie: if that's what you mean by 'an outside force').
Yet .. I'd still say it is visibly, animated ..

neither does it produce a living force so let's stay in context.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing in particular but a person can say something
over and over if they want. It's just a quote, which can
be whatever.
I got in a row with American teacher over it when
she was so happy with. "He said that that that that that that
student wrote was wrong".

I said I could get in more thats than that.

Oh, OK. The idea was to be both grammatical and mean something.

 

[SelfSim]

neither does it produce a living force so let's stay in context.

Ok .. then the fundamental chemistry it demonstrates, (catalysis), is proposed as being the basis for abiogenesis .. (which leads onto producing your 'living force') .. Ie: its all (very much) within context.

ETA: It could also, conceivably, lead to life as we don't know it .. how's that as an example of something unexpected .. but still within context!?

 

[Occams Barber]

it's more like saying there is a source behind it. I'm agnostic to the specifics and I have no problem following an evolutionary process to describe life, it's just that the process was caused, not unlike your seed analogy that was also caused. the seed was caused by the tree... the life on earth was caused by the .... 'I dunno' except that eventually, I believe in a theistic source as the cause.

So, where I would say that the 'first cause' of life was a chemical process acting on non-living matter, you might say it was God acting on non-living matter?

If I've interpreted you correctly - do you think that God used natural processes or did He do something contrary to what we might expect of a naturalistic explanation?

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if I leave a piece of meat out and let it rot to discover it's then covered in maggots where did the maggots come from? did the inanimate meat spontaneously generate the maggots? that's what this argument amounts to. every inanimate to animate conversion is explained through a self-contained process that is dependant upon the animate. your argument demonstrates the conversion in a vacuum where life pre-exists but does not address outside the vacuum. the same logic could be used to point to an outside influence.

One broad idea of abiogenesis is that it started with chemical 'evolution' in some watery environment rich in minerals with free energy flowing in and out of it, e.g. sun-warmed tidal pools, or oceanic hydrothermal vents, or volcanic pools, etc.

The active chemistry in these environments produced self-catalysing cycles where some reactants underwent a cycle of reactions with other chemicals that eventually produced more of the originals. Variations in the efficiency of such cycles would mean that the most efficient would tend to become the dominant form. In this way, these environments would become rich sources of efficient catalysts and autocatalytic cycles among which more complex interactions could occur.

At some point (opinions vary) a suitable set of interacting chemical cycles would be encapsulated in a lipid vesicle, a 'bubble' made of lipid molecules (these self-assemble in solution given suitable conditions), producing a proto-cell. Once encapsulated, a new type of proto-cellular evolution could commence as the vesicle would draw in chemical reactants from outside, expand, and then divide, sharing the contents between 'offspring'. Given plenty of energy and chemical resources, there'd nothing to stop these proto-cells from becoming more complex and more efficient as variations in their contents and new reactions using new chemical resources resulted in a form of evolutionary competition between them.

In this scenario, genetic material would appear relatively late in the day, but there are other hypotheses where RNA is one of the early catalysts involved. There would be no clear dividing line between life and non-life.

 

[SelfSim]

One broad idea of abiogenesis is that it started with chemical 'evolution' in some watery environment rich in minerals with free energy flowing in and out of it, e.g. sun-warmed tidal pools, or oceanic hydrothermal vents, or volcanic pools, etc.

The active chemistry in these environments produced self-catalysing cycles where some reactants underwent a cycle of reactions with other chemicals that eventually produced more of the originals. Variations in the efficiency of such cycles would mean that the most efficient would tend to become the dominant form. In this way, these environments would become rich sources of efficient catalysts and autocatalytic cycles among which more complex interactions could occur.

At some point (opinions vary) a suitable set of interacting chemical cycles would be encapsulated in a lipid vesicle, a 'bubble' made of lipid molecules (these self-assemble in solution given suitable conditions), producing a proto-cell. Once encapsulated, a new type of proto-cellular evolution could commence as the vesicle would draw in chemical reactants from outside, expand, and then divide, sharing the contents between 'offspring'. Given plenty of energy and chemical resources, there'd nothing to stop these proto-cells from becoming more complex and more efficient as variations in their contents and new reactions using new chemical resources resulted in a form of evolutionary competition between them.

In this scenario, genetic material would appear relatively late in the day, but there are other hypotheses where RNA is one of the early catalysts involved. There would be no clear dividing line between life and non-life.

Hmm .. Nice prose .. Fundamentally sound too .. what's more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah like I MIGHT be able to understand a world full of Vulcans where bodily actions are totally logical and parsimonious, where getting up to get water might make sense (although I’d run into problems if Vulcans had originality and personality). But for me all bets are off with our idiot human race of pure illogical nonsense lol. I can stand up and drive my head through the window right now if I wanted to. I think that it all begins with a polarity build up inside of a neuron, which causes a bodily function to commence, an action potential. I’m at a complete loss why any scientific rule would rev up a neurological action potential in my body that would result in me hoping on one leg and singing Sinatra. Much less accompanied by a (false) mental belief that I chose to do so.

The brain is an incredibly complex system - around 80 billion neurons with trillions of connections between them. When such a complex system is 'idling', not occupied with important everyday matters of survival, it can 'freewheel', in various ways - making plans, combining ideas in new ways, reminiscing, daydreaming, being creative, and releasing tensions by being silly (which may also be a means of social bonding using humour, derived from early play).

This appears to be more than just a side-effect of not being specifically occupied - there is a whole neural system that becomes active when this kind of activity is going on, the Default Mode Network. This suggests that these things play an important role in our success as a species.

 

[Occams Barber]

One broad idea of abiogenesis is that it started with chemical 'evolution' in some watery environment rich in minerals with free energy flowing in and out of it, e.g. sun-warmed tidal pools, or oceanic hydrothermal vents, or volcanic pools, etc.

The active chemistry in these environments produced self-catalysing cycles where some reactants underwent a cycle of reactions with other chemicals that eventually produced more of the originals. Variations in the efficiency of such cycles would mean that the most efficient would tend to become the dominant form. In this way, these environments would become rich sources of efficient catalysts and autocatalytic cycles among which more complex interactions could occur.

At some point (opinions vary) a suitable set of interacting chemical cycles would be encapsulated in a lipid vesicle, a 'bubble' made of lipid molecules (these self-assemble in solution given suitable conditions), producing a proto-cell. Once encapsulated, a new type of proto-cellular evolution could commence as the vesicle would draw in chemical reactants from outside, expand, and then divide, sharing the contents between 'offspring'. Given plenty of energy and chemical resources, there'd nothing to stop these proto-cells from becoming more complex and more efficient as variations in their contents and new reactions using new chemical resources resulted in a form of evolutionary competition between them.

In this scenario, genetic material would appear relatively late in the day, but there are other hypotheses where RNA is one of the early catalysts involved. There would be no clear dividing line between life and non-life.

This sounds a heck of a lot like the chicken soup I often make in winter. Left too long unrefrigerated and it also suffers from an excess of abiogenesis.

OB

 

[SelfSim]

This sounds a heck of a lot like the chicken soup I often make in winter. Left too long unrefrigerated and it also suffers from an excess of abiogenesis.

Hang on a sec .. the chicken gets added first doesn't it?