The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Who are these scientists, and by whom are they "respected"?

1) Most scientists
2) The Nobel Prize Committee for a start.

The way the assertion is worded, you would be better off asking who doesn't agree with the statement. The first life did not arise by chance, it arose due to well understood, and, given the environment inevitable, chemical reactions and physics, and it was not a 'cell' - simple or not.

And here is one example of one scientist that agrees with it and is certainly well respected by the Nobel Prize Committee: Dr. Jack Szostak (Nobel laureate 2009 for his work on telomerase).



(I have linked this video so many times, is there really anybody left on the planet who hasn't seen it? It is brilliant!

a reply to: rnaa

Great video. A post of pure class, as always rnaa.

Although now I have my grammar school song stuck in my head ( "Ode to Joy" )

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What? Evolution doesn't rely on abiogenesis being right for it to be true. That is a strawman.

Also Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and Evolution is a theory.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Until science can take water and basic elements and create life, the simplest microscopic self replicating form, atheism is dead in the water ( pun intended ). They cannot, even after studying life and seeing exactly what is needed material wise, do the feat.

Atheism has nothing to do with the current form of the Abiogenesis hypothesis. Disbelief in god doesn't mean that life had to arise chemically. It is likely the case that this is true, but it isn't required.

It's funny how you can declare atheism dead in the water because a singular hypothesis hasn't been made into a theory yet you refuse to accept that your bible is so full of holes and lies that it could never be true. If atheism is dead in the water because of lacking evidence for a hypothesis, then Christianity is done decomposed into dirt.

the odds of getting one exact sequence of 52 cards in a deck is 52! (52*51*50*49...*3*2*1) this is an astronomically large number, and yet if I shuffle a pack of playing cards, I end up with a unique sequence which had that very large chance of not happening.

'extremely unlikely' does not equal 'impossible' (neither does 'almost negligible', or 'very close to zero possibility', or 'almost impossible' or 'millions to one against' etc, etc)

it's very unlikely that you'll get struck by lightening, and it's even more unlikely that if you do, you'll survivie, however every year there are stories of people getting struck by lightening and surviving, and even more of people dieing from lightening strikes.
Some people suggest that the first 'living' things were created when certain chemicals were in certain proximites and were struck by lightening - compare this with giving a shock to the chest of a person who's heart has stopped.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Because you responded with a simplistic "Rubbish".

I will respond with a simply retort, everything you posted is just your opinion, and like a nose we all have one, but just one. Some noses are more prominent than others, but they serve the same purpose. Your opinion is not greater than mine, and mine is not greater than yours.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Until science can take water and basic elements and create life, the simplest microscopic self replicating form, atheism is dead in the water ( pun intended ). They cannot, even after studying life and seeing exactly what is needed material wise, do the feat.

Atheism has nothing to do with the current form of the Abiogenesis hypothesis. Disbelief in god doesn't mean that life had to arise chemically. It is likely the case that this is true, but it isn't required.

It's funny how you can declare atheism dead in the water because a singular hypothesis hasn't been made into a theory yet you refuse to accept that your bible is so full of holes and lies that it could never be true. If atheism is dead in the water because of lacking evidence for a hypothesis, then Christianity is done decomposed into dirt.

Nope,
Can't do it, then atheism dead.

I'll be waiting for life to be demonstrated in the laboratory before I give it any credence.

In the meantime there was a man named Jesus who healed people in front of witnesses who lays claim to life was created and his first leaders among followers have a testimony of doing the same.

Atheists have scientists who claim life emerged from a unique combination of odds coming together that is undemonstrated. Crazy people from asylums say life poofed into existence out of nowhere and they have more in common with atheists.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It's merely our ego's that make the questions more difficult.

This is an interesting statement, intellectual elitism fuels that, and I see it from the other side, a hyperbole of that would be Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory.

Who has the bigger ego's, those that can answer all these questions instantly, or those that are unsure and need to ponder and mediate on them ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sorry bud, but you are wrong in your first few lines.

1. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory like evolution. While evolution is backed by tons of hard evidence, abiogenesis only has a few select experiments in support of it.

2. Evolution DOES NOT rely on abiogenesis to validate it.

Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules
that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem
designed to work together.

That is not a fact. That is your opinion. The bold proves it.

Fact: Some respected scientists say that even
a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen
by chance on earth.

Fact: Nobody cares, and that has no relevance on whether or not abiogenesis or evolution is true.

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate
that life came from an extraterrestrial source,
what is the basis for ruling out God as that
Source ?

Why does it always boil down to god with you guys? Science HAS NOT ruled god out, there just isn't any objective evidence of a design or designer. But seriously when you post a picture that says, "All scientific research indicates that life cannot arise from non living matter," show some scrutiny. In the same logic, all scientific research also indicates that a god is not necessary for anything in the universe to function. The problem is you are trying to prove a negative, rather than post positive evidence of your position. All scientific research does not actually say that life cannot arise from non life. There are a couple experiments that have replicated parts of the abiogenesis process. Obviously it's not enough to prove it, but it's a work in progress, hence why it is a hypothesis instead of theory.

What is the source link for your pictures? I wouldn't normally ask but since they assert facts, I'd like to know. 10 to 1 says it's a creationist, non scientific source.

Does he or she represent blind chance or intelligent entity

Asking this question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how science works. Less assumptions is better. The person running the experiment assumes neither as they are trying to figure the answer out, rather than assert a position then cherry pick evidence to support it like some folks here.

The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical

Oh really? So you have crunched the numbers and run simulations? Could you please back up this claim and cite the odds and how you know them?

What takes greater faith to believe?

God / Intelligent Designer or Creation/design has no objective evidence whatsoever in support of it. Abiogensis may not have much, but it has more than that. At least 2 experiments support it. How many experiments support god again? Oh that's right. Zero. Logically, greater faith is required to believe the one with zero evidence.

These arguments sounds like they are straight from Stephen Meyer, who bases his argument for design on a pure appeal to ignorance and emotion. "OMG, that totally looks designed" doesn't make it so.

edit on 2-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Barcs

2. Evolution DOES NOT rely on abiogenesis to validate it.

As always we kick the can of questionable hypothesis down the scientific road just to come back to it, I have noticed how strongly people try to decouple the two topics, yet the are linked in concept, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves. "But But But scientifically they are separate", is the mantra. And it's just so people don't have to spend time defending the foundation of evolution.
It's like building a 30 story building with no piles or foundation on the beach on sand, it's going to come down.
You have a fantastic scientific theory built on sand.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Until science can take water and basic elements and create life, the simplest microscopic self replicating form, atheism is dead in the water ( pun intended ). They cannot, even after studying life and seeing exactly what is needed material wise, do the feat.

Really? Because the latter proves god? Even if there was zero evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis (there actually is, however), it still wouldn't make the idea of god or creator correct. You don't just believe something blindly because you can't prove it wrong. Or you could stick with your double standards, even though science cannot reproduce god or any part of the creation process, nor is there any evidence whatsoever for it. Why can't you hold the same standard for believing god as you do for abiogenesis?

I'll be waiting for life to be demonstrated in the laboratory before I give it any credence.

Then surely you'll be waiting for god to be proven in a lab before giving him credence as well right?

n the meantime there was a man named Jesus who healed people in front of witnesses who lays claim to life was created and his first leaders among followers have a testimony of doing the same.

Translation: In the meantime I'm going to cite ancient myths as absolute truth despite no way to verify it.

Why is your go-to argument always to insult atheists or claim evolution has anything to do with atheism. It doesn't and neither does abiogenesis. Nice try.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Nope,
Can't do it, then atheism dead.

Atheism is disbelief in a god. Abiogenesis is life arising chemically. One is a belief system the other is a scientific hypothesis. Stop trying to correlate the two. One doesn't require the other to be true.

I'll be waiting for life to be demonstrated in the laboratory before I give it any credence.

Fine. That still has nothing to do with atheism.

In the meantime there was a man named Jesus who healed people in front of witnesses who lays claim to life was created and his first leaders among followers have a testimony of doing the same.

Prove it in a laboratory setting.

Atheists have scientists who claim life emerged from a unique combination of odds coming together that is undemonstrated. Crazy people from asylums say life poofed into existence out of nowhere and they have more in common with atheists.

This is ignorance to the extreme.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As always we kick the can of questionable hypothesis down the scientific road just to come back to it, I have noticed how strongly people try to decouple the two topics, yet the are linked in concept, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves. "But But But scientifically they are separate", is the mantra. And it's just so people don't have to spend time defending the foundation of evolution.

That's completely false. Evolution and abiogenesis are not linked in concept. Evolution is about genetic mutations slowly changing life over time. Abiogenesis is about how life can arise from basic components. They aren't related in the least. Creationists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument against evolution and have to resort to attacking an unproven hypothesis that isn't related. Do you really believe that god couldn't have started the big bang in such a way that life would arise down the road? Do you really believe god couldn't use abiogenesis or evolution as a tool? Evolution is not reliant on abiogenesis, no matter how many times you repeat it, and it's funny how the majority of my post was ignored. What about the source I asked you for?

It's like building a 30 story building with no piles or foundation on the beach on sand, it's going to come down.
You have a fantastic scientific theory built on sand.

Oh yay, an irrelevant metaphor. Sorry, you are wrong. Do the research.

It's like showing card tricks to a dog isn't it?

a reply to: Barcs

Oh your reasoning cuts both ways.

Creationists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument against evolution and have to resort to attacking an unproven hypothesis that isn't related.

Evolutionists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument for abiogenesis and have to resort to attacking the questions that relate to evolution.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Oh your reasoning cuts both ways.

Creationists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument against evolution and have to resort to attacking an unproven hypothesis that isn't related.

Evolutionists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument for abiogenesis and have to resort to attacking the questions that relate to evolution.

Funny how you ignored everything else in my post again in favor of semantics, including my 2nd request to source your pictures. Your reluctance to do this, suggests that your facts are not facts and you are just regurgitating something you saw on a biased creationist anti science website.

First, there is no such thing as an evolutionist, the term was coined by creationists and used as derogatory to suggest evolution is a guess. There are evolutionary biologists and people who agree with science. I also agree with the science behind gravity. Does that make me a gravitist?

Second, abiogenesis is still irrelevant to evolution. It doesn't matter how life got to planet earth. Various environmental factors cause genes to mutate and change over time. This is fact, regardless and isn't reliant on life emerging from basic components. Genetic mutation can't happen without DNA, so there is no part of evolution at all that depends on abiogenesis. If you believe there is, then please cite where this process overlaps from one to the other.

Your accusation is like saying, "Geneticists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument for nuclear fusion". Sorry there is no relation no matter how badly you want there to be.

If you'd like to argue against evolution, then argue against evolution. If you'd rather argue against abiogenesis (as creationists should be doing), then focus on that. When you equivocate 2 different versions of the word evolution and consider them equal, it is completely illogical as they have different meanings.

The Theory of Evolution is based on observable data. Therefore, it's a theory. (A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.)

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis because there is very little observable data. (A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded. A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct.)

The lack of data for one does not disprove the other. That's like saying because we don't know the origin of matter in the universe, all science is bunk.

I know that some of you need to discredit science in order to validate your belief in god but you should really seek a rational middle-ground instead of denying cold hard facts. At the very least, just believe whatever you want to believe and stop trying to justify it to the rest of us. Frankly, we don't care what you believe and you're not going to convince anyone that you're right. In short:

Some people just don't get the totality of the concept.
For example let's use a formula for math, I will use a simple electrical one of amps, volts and watts and electrical horsepower

A X V = W / 746(1000) = HP

If I know 100% percent for sure what the volts are, but I have no idea what the Amps are I can't get the watts or HP accurate, I am just guessing.

So you have cosmology we will say that is "C"
Next we have Abiogenesis we will say this is "A"
Then you have Evolution we will say this is "E"
We have needed time we will say this "T"
Life on planet = "LOP"

So C X A = E / T = LOP.

The point of this example is we can't remove the "A" out the equation to find the actual answer, it is inextricably linked no matter how hard you want to believe through science or otherwise they are not. Everybody is just guessing at "A", because nobody knows, and that has been posted numerous times in this thread.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Holy red herring, batman.

The problem is you made that equation up on the spot and it neglects numerous other factors required for life.

LMAO at Cosmology X abiogenesis = evolution. Sorry that's not how it works.

Genetic mutations + natural selection = evolution.

And by all means explain how you are able to multiply concepts that can't be quantified in numbers? It makes no sense at all, mathematically or scientifically. You can't express "cosmology" as a whole with a numerical value, same with abiogenesis, evolution, etc etc. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Plus there's the fact that you once again ignored everything in my post and didn't yet back up your facts. That is really suspicious and not surprising in the least. People from your camp constantly make stuff up in favor of their faith, but have no idea what evolution or abiogenesis mean. Are you going to demonstrate the overlapping mechanism for me? If you cannot do this, then that's too bad, you are wrong.