The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: kennyb72

Again you are assuming, as are the creationists that all those who believe in evolution are.... atheists. Darwin was not. I am not, several other posters pro evolution are not So your point is moot

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The "theory of everything" that people go on about is misconstrued. Usually by the media. Most physicists just want to have relativity and quantum physics tied together. Its not a theory of everything.

Biological science? Oh hell no, too complex for a single theory

Its up there with "missing link" and "god particle" for misconstrued science by media

a reply to: Noinden

Perhaps I was thinking more about the unified field theory.

Basically it seems that he thinks there is some kind of connection or "flow" between abiogenesis and evolution. Something that is underneath. Something that underpins both of them. What works for evolution works for abiogenesis and vice versa.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ok in all seriousness here. Chemically and genetically (sort of the same thing really). No no there is not a link.

For example early life probably used rNA not dNA, which was less stable (not that DNA is that stable, its why we have so many checking mechanisms).

How life started could be many ways, and I've mentioned several in the threads created (oops bad pun) here. There are some really puzzling mysteries there, like why specific chirality (aka handedness) in certain molecules (amino acids and sugars)??

But someones Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG) on something is not science.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Basically it seems that he thinks there is some kind of connection or "flow" between abiogenesis and evolution. Something that is underneath. Something that underpins both of them. What works for evolution works for abiogenesis and vice versa.

Abiogenesis supposes that life springs up from non living matter as perhaps a chemical reaction, I agree with your earlier question that life may have always existed. I don't believe in infinite to one accidents. I am convinced that there is a flow, the word you used to described it, It exists here where we live, the earth, and that is the collective knowledge of all that has gone before including our ancestors and much more life than we can witness with our senses.

I believe that they are the designer of organisms, geneticist and scientists of our evolved selves. I believe that the earliest inhabitant of Earth where not physical beings at all but etheric beings. As they evolved they designed organisms that would allow them to be present in the physical world. The movie avatar would be a good way to look at it, if we see the humans in that role and swap them for the evolved beings I am talking about. We are the creatures that inhabit this place and the function for our physical existence is as an aid for us to evolve consciously and become the same as they are.

This knowledge is thousands of years old and not something I am just making up as I go along. It is what is revealed through the esoteric teachings.

a reply to: Noinden

But someones Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG) on something is not science.

Did you just make that up Noinden? that's quite good, it could even catch on!

a reply to: Noinden

He understands that. He even agreed that both have nothing to do with each other. (btw check your u2u)

What he is talking about (as far as I understand) that something is driving the process. Something very fundamental. Something that is common to the biological process. Something that is right under there.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

He understands that. He even agreed that both have nothing to do with each other. (btw check your u2u)

What he is talking about (as far as I understand) that something is driving the process. Something very fundamental. Something that is common to the biological process. Something that is right under there.

YES!!!! I'll drink to that.

a reply to: Answer

I was quoting Blue_Jay33, not you.

The new system of replying to posts 'inline' conduces to these errors. I made a similar one myself earlier, addressing to you a remark that was really intended for TinfoilTP. My apologies for that.

a reply to: kennyb72

That is your 'belief' and is not any different then any other religious view, as its based purely on large amount of imagination and wishful thinking mixed with abuse of science to color your predetermined view at world...

You already know, this is not how science works... sorry...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I keep having to come back to the fact that this is the 'Origins and Creationism' forum and it seems to be that you guys insist that this area is owned by science. You consistently dismiss our views as imagination and wishful thinking but science is certainly not yet in any position to make that statement. Of course it is not the way science works, If it where then we would not be debating it.

I am proposing a metaphysical reality to life, and you know that the scientific approach is not how metaphysics works(not until quantum physics becomes clearer anyway) so I return your commiserations.

a reply to: kennyb72

Seems you got forum/subforum right, but topic is not about your proposal on metaphysical reality to life, but 'The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution', that IMHO calls for scientific answers, don't you think?

What do you mean by 'but science is certainly not yet in any position to make that statement'??

Care to elaborate what you think about Deepak Chopra and his misinterpretation of quantum physics to prove that even atoms have consciousness?

a reply to: SuperFrog

The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution', that IMHO calls for scientific answers, don't you think?

That question most certainly straddles the chasm between science and metaphysics, I am surprised you can't see that as abiogenesis is a questionable process that deals with origin of life and science has no clear answers to that.

What do you mean by 'but science is certainly not yet in any position to make that statement'??

Are you seriously suggesting that science holds all the answers to our reality because it doesn't, and hasn't yet even scratched the surface. There are many scientists that would agree with that point of view.

Care to elaborate what you think about Deepak Chopra and his misinterpretation of quantum physics to prove that even atoms have consciousness?

I havn't studied any works by Deepak Chopra although I understand he has a metaphysical approach to life.

It is interesting that you say that he misinterprets quantum physics as proving that atoms have consciousness though, because that is my firm belief. In fact I would go further to say that the atom is comprised of millions of subatomic particles that esoterics refer to as monads(Theoretical science refers to them as strings) and that every single monad has consciousness either dormant, passive or active.

The entire cosmos is comprised of conscious matter in motion otherwise referred to as energy.

a reply to: SuperFrog

mixed with abuse of science to color your predetermined view at world...

Sorry, I had to come back to this statement. An abuse of science, what a novel concept, that is what real scientists are supposed to do. To question the science to discover deeper truths. So if a layman questions it, it is an abuse. How elitist that concept appears to me. Anybody can question anything. Science does not hold a monopoly on reasoning.

I am surprised that you did not read or hear more about Deepak Chopra. Reason I say he misinterprets science to feed his narrow agenda (witch is quite similar to your view), just look at this short video...



As I know you are found of Dawkins' voice, here is long debate between Chopra and Dawkins, that ends in very upset Chopra announcing that this was 'one in life time opportunity and that he will never debate with Dawkins. It is closely connected to your views, so please watch and we can talk about it later...



As I said, your firm belief has no evidence, its just belief. Any misuse of science either to false conclusion or mix of not verified hypothesis to propagate those views is abuse in my opinion.

Sure thing, abiogenesis is not proven theory, but scientist are working on it, and in mean time we simply don't have an definitive answer how life started. All what is required in this still young field is patience...

Back to main topic, very interesting article that shreds more evidence for Abiogenesis - www.brantfordexpositor.ca...

In given article...

An experiment to test this hypothesis was made in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The scientists put water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen -- all common chemicals available on the primitive Earth -- into a large flask and provided energy in the form of heat. At the conclusion of this experiment very complex chemicals including amino acids, the foundation of organic chemistry, were found in the flask.

In fact, when the sealed vials of the experiment were tested in 2007, they found more than 20 amino acids in the experiment. Life as we know it uses only 20 of these chemicals, so the experiment seemed to indicate the basic chemistry of life could arise spontaneously, given energy and time.

Subsequent experiments also added an electric spark to simulate lightning in the atmosphere and even more complex chemistry was obtained. The obvious conclusion appears to be, given the right mix of chemistry and energy, the evolution of the chemistry of life is inevitable.

And here is more info of new research...

Recently in a paper published in Nature Chemistry, a team of scientists at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have taken the earlier work to a wonderful conclusion.

Using just hydrogen sulfide, a gas that smells like rotten eggs, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light from the sun, the team was able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids -- precursors to DNA and RNA molecules.

Hydrogen sulfide is common on Earth and can be found almost anywhere volcanos exist. Hydrogen cyanide can be produced by the interaction of meteors from space as they plunge through the atmosphere. Remember, Earth is under constant meteoric bombardment every day so it would not be hard for these chemicals to come in contact in the presence of ultra-violet light from the sun at a time when there was only a minimal ozone layer to protect Earth

In conclusion, I would agree that main problem here is not far different from problem religious people have with Theory of Evolution. While there people dislike idea of being related to animals such as great apes, here people dislike idea that we might be just product of physical and chemistry laws and that such processes are inevitable.

So after this article, I had no option but to find given research and read more....

On the early Earth, after a series of meteorite strikes, various chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide would have been present. Bhavesh Patel and Claudia Percivalle used conventional apparatus and reagents to simulate the sorts of chemistry that could have taken place on this early Earth. They took hydrogen cyanide through a series of chemical reactions, and showed that it was possible to assemble precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and even lipids from this simple chemical, with the addition of hydrogen sulphide, using ultraviolet light and copper ions as catalysts. These precursor molecules provide the biomolecular building blocks for coding information in a cell, for producing proteins, and for creating the membrane compartments necessary for forming the first cell.

The team created a protometabolic network of chemistry, which showed how the syntheses of these ribonucleotide, amino acid and lipid precursor molecules are interconnected. This exciting discovery showed that the three subsystems of the first cell could have originated simultaneously through common chemistry, and leads to the idea that life could have originated as a consequence of the fundamental reactivity of hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide.

* Source - www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk...

And final paper can be found here: www.nature.com...

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

Hi barcs, Sorry but I have never defended abiogenesis, as a prerequisite for a process you chaps refer to as evolution. Again another assertion based on not understanding another persons position, or, actually caring about what others think.

While you may not have defended it directly, your very first post in this thread suggests you do have an emotional connection to the topic. You came in adamantly defending folks who were arguing for that position and attacking science right off the bat.

Your first post in the thread

I see the usual crowd of God hating heathens have gathered for their ritual feast of derision and egocentric psudo-science. An orgy of self gratification whilst pleasuring themselves on grubby pictures of Charles Darwin. Simple minds that have invested way too much time greedily gobbling every scientific paper they have the capacity to understand and spout, as if they held any credence at all.

Like moths around a dim light, they don’t even know that it is dark all around them. A glimmer of half baked hypothesis and theories, contrived to support wasted lives of useless research. Sadly, It is all they will ever be able to see.

If that isn't an emotional response I don't know what is. Is this you inviting criticism by intentionally calling all science pseudo-science and insulting the scientist that founded evolutionary theory as well as ranting so badly to call science "wasted lives of useless research".

Humankind’s entire scientific knowledge compares to a fleck of dust in an entire universe of matter and yet the ego’s of those that only understand a fraction of that fleck, feel empowered and mighty because their pea brains figured out something that made sense to them.

Once again, pure emotion as you irrationally accuse scientists of ego stroking rather than conducting scientific research and even call them pea brained lol.

I have arrived at the firm belief that atheists, simply do not have the capacity to visualise anything more complex than a colouring in book. Brains too compartmentalized, just too small in capacity to imagine for themselves.

Again, who is doing the attacking here? You compared atheism to the intellectual capacity of children's coloring books and wonder why folks criticize you so easily. Maybe you were joking, maybe you were trolling, maybe you were serious. Either way, you backtracked out of this statement numerous ways trying to rationalize it with statements about your belief system and brain going through dimensions, and each point got further from the original statement as the large majority of your posts in this section do. You came into this thread looking for a fight and you got one. It's pretty difficult not to, when your first post is a direct insult to a good portion of the members that post here.

It it good that you posted this thread Blue_Jay33, but you must have known that it was an exercise in futility and that you would attract the same slavish adherence to the holy books of scientific follies in a field that compares to investigating a crime that didn't happen.

Here you are defending the OP, who has said quite clearly multiple times that the validity of evolution depends on abiogenesis being true and is the entire premise of the thread. You claim you haven't defended it, but you have, and according to your logic, attacking science is a valid way to defend faith.

It is life itself that is the proof of creation, not its remnants. That is why we must never mention the origin of life in our discourse, because it is not related to evolution theory, at least, not to a simple mind.

Wait a second. You clearly said above that you did not defend the premise that abiogenesis was necessary for evolution, yet here you are saying that it's only unrelated if you have a simple mind. Another "joke" perhaps?

I didn't want for it to come to this, but I've noticed the pattern of your posts in topics here. They start out very combative, you get criticized, then you spend the rest of the topic backtracking out of that position and promoting your faith as fact.

I gave prior warning that I was a going to over generalise, (ridiculously so in fact) to emphasise that one should not take that too seriously, as it is just a useful way to sum up millions of individuals and inject a little humour. If it where done in a 'face to face' conversation it would be clarified with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow. Oh well, I guess subtleties can be lost on the internet.

Your posts were equivalent to saying all african americans like fried chicken, and then wondering why nobody got the "joke". On one hand you seem to have very strong feelings about this topic, but on the other hand you seem to try to provoke reactions out of people using attacks that you later claim are jokes. If you don't want anybody to take you seriously about anything you ever say on here, then just say so and I'll just respond to your sillyness with "LOL". That's what literally happens when I read your posts, but not for the reasons you think.

I just don't take anything too seriously at all, so, I am always flippant and chuckling to myself when I respond to you guys. I always seem to get the same reaction as a TV host received from the Dali Lamer, when he told him the joke about the Buddhist monk going into a Pizza shop, who asked for 'One with everything' - Just no humour at all those Buddhists.

Perhaps you are happy and giddy when you post, but that's not the vibe I get. I sense strong emotion in some of your words. While it can be difficult to tell intention and sarcasm over the internet, it can be helpful if you lay out your intentions first. If you are trolling just to throw this off topic because science is "winning" the argument, then shame on you. If you actually find generalizations like your one of Buddhists above to be humorous rather than offensive, then I suggest that you find a new day job.

Not going to happen my friend, because this Forum, if you hadn't noticed is named Origins and Creationism, in fact, What are you lot doing in here? because neither of those words have anything to do with evolution.

Origin of species is still an origin, and the only reason I'm here is to defend science when it gets attacked.

What would you say to a post such as yours, that attacked Christianity or your belief system in the same way as you have attacked science and atheism in your first post? How would you view that? As a joke? I don't think you would. I think you'd use it to paint all atheists and evolution supporters in a negative light. But here you are doing exactly that and acting like it's fine.

Anyways, I'm not going to go back and forth on this anymore out of respect for the topic. Super Frog posted some very good information directly above mine, and I highly recommend you all read that if you haven't.

a reply to: SuperFrog
Hi Superfrog, Well the debate was a surprise and also a revelation to me.

The first 6 min clip didn’t leave me feeling as though Depak Chopra's views had much substance to them and I was not even sure if could subscribe to his views.

The debate itself though was most revealing, and one that I thoroughly enjoyed. I thank you for highlighting Chopra to me. I was aware of him as being an enlightened person, but for some reason I perceived him to be a mystic in a suit.

I have no problems with that description, other than to say that there is a departure between eastern mysticism and western esoterics, in its understanding of the division of dimensional reality and the fundamental definition of what our physical reality is.

The eastern philosophy presents the view that the physical world is illusory, where hylozoics recognises the matter based nature of the physical dimension.

Yes, I can unreservedly and unapologetically say, that I whole heartedly agreed with everything that he most articulately conveyed, and If I had to use anybody as an example of an enlightend person that understand the truth of reality and one that I can say I share my own world/life view with, then it would be him.

What a perfect glimpse of the holistic and myopic world views presenting a casebook example of two opposing ideologies and, of how not to conduct a debate by Dawkins. Chopra was calm and self assured, polite and enlightening while Dawkins was emotional and irrational, throwing ad homonims and generally being obnoxious. I’m right and your wrong Whaa, Whaaa, Whaaa . I am afraid your poster child is just that from a spiritual perspective.

His arguments where ridiculous to the extreme, to say on the one hand that we have no understanding of consciousness and yet completely dismiss the anecdotal evidence of millions of people world wide who transcend physicality to experience objectively first hand, other dimensional realities. Dawkins simply could not relate to that, as we discovered with his personal examples of of his own interpretation of transcension. It was demonstrably beyond him.

He is saying I have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, science has absolutely no concept of what consciousness is, but it’s not what you say it is. Really!!!

My entire experience of interaction on these boards are identical to what we witnessed observing these two people.

Chopra is a causal self, and Dawking is not, plain and simple. Dawkins is closed down detached from his causal mind and spend much to much time in his emotional envelope/plane struggling to even achieve mental consciousness which is not coloured by his emotions much of the time.

What a ridiculous waste of debating time to spend even more than a few seconds on the semantics of the meaning quantum leap, both as metaphor and a scientific term, and Dawkins implying that his audience weren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference, by accusing Chopra of clouding the issue with his use of the term.

Dawkins completely does not ‘get’ the distinction between perception and awareness, as it related to levels of consciousness in all things, and was clearly out of his depth. I felt embarrassed for him and I confess sympathy for the way his shutdown perception of life has made him the shutdown person we witnessed during the debate. I almost feel compelled to send him a 'get well soon' card.

I would not be surprised if Chopra was aware of the esoteric knowledge that I have been trying to convey in this forum, but given that much of of the knowledge has passed down through the Vedic scrips as well as Gnostic records and Kabbalic teachings, all of which convey the same fundamental message, It would certainly account for his deeper understanding of the reality of life.

In his case however he is a biologist, something I was not aware of, and that he has the training and knowledge of science to reconcile spirit with matter.

Thank you again for the video.

a reply to: Barcs
You have provided me with some wonderful examples of misconceptions my friend, and although I feel tempted to respond individually I feel there is little point.

I can't help but feel a strange sense of affection to both you and Noinden, although I feel a warm disposition to many of the poster here, it must be a spiritual thing . You all reveal so much of yourselves in our conversations. Although we disagree most of the time it does not diminish that sense of love.

I will just say that, I did not intend to enter this camp as a lamb to the slaughter and I came out swinging, which I am sure you can understand, even though you protest otherwise.

Thank you all for helping me to experience the true meaning of the acronym LOL.

In conclusion, I would agree that main problem here is not far different from problem religious people have with Theory of Evolution. While there people dislike idea of being related to animals such as great apes, here people dislike idea that we might be just product of physical and chemistry laws and that such processes are inevitable

Seriously now Superfrog, you, it would appear have absolutely no idea of what the term life is.

Do you think that creationist or those that believe in intelligent design, think that organisms are not of this Earth or created from the stuff of this Earth. Biological entities are composed of atoms, molecules,compounds and chemicals that exist here, otherwise there could be no organism.

What you cannot see or understand, is the force that animates life. A dead person can look exactly like a live person but without that force. The connection is severed between the physical world and the inter dimensional world at the moment of death. Our consciousness loses objective awareness in the physical world and becomes objectively conscious in emotional world 'Maya,' over time it loses objective consciousness in the emotional world and gains objective consciousness in the mental.

I know, I know, it is all unproven mumbo jumbo to you. That is because you can't see it, and you can't remember being there. Well a percentage of humanity has been there, in an objective sense, and many remember things from previous lives. I am sorry to say that it is your loss, but is only a temporary thing as we all die and will discover it all over again.

Thank you all again for your views , I may even be tempted to jump in again at some time, if it is in this forum, as I feel quite justified to express my views on this topic.

a reply to: kennyb72

Does this apply to all life forms like 1 called organisms? ? Life has 3 functions grow interact with its surroundings and reproduce. You are no diffrent than an amoeba your just alot of one celled organisms working together. Consciousness is not a determination of life neither is self awareness this comes with adaptation known as evolution. Why did humans have self aware simple were smart enough.

There's no mystic properties at work but if it makes you feel better you never truly die the energy that is you can't be destroyed only changed into something else. Think of it as the universes way of reincarnation. Energy will exist forever in one form or another it's really amazing if you think about it parts of you wad born in a star. Your part of the universe itself you are linked to the stars in the heavens. Sorry going overboard a bit but you get the idea.