Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: cooperton
Seriously, if you think you are the meaningless ancestor of mutants, I don't see how you can extract any meaning from life besides concluding that you are an erroneous blip that eventually fades away forever.

Just because you don't like the idea of something doesn't mean it isn't true.
The I dream of Jeanie everything blinks into existence model is insulting to anyones rational mind. While we investigate further into the mechanics of how all things started, its best to shed that just on principle unless it is proven (and proof is hard for anything).

If that's the case, nothing you do matters, ever.

Perhaps thats how you would see things.
I would venture to say things matter more if that was to be the case...suddenly spreading our seed into the stars becomes critical. Imagine the opposite...you are stuck on this wasteland dirtball but when you die...totally awesomeness waiting for you and you realize all this stuff here was just a stupid waste of time. If that was the case, people would off themselves the second they had a bad hair day.
That, in my opinion, sounds pretty nihilistic.

Anyhow, thats really a different subject. Lets go with the creationist side of things....some deity decided to make life...great. a biological machine. We can make machines...I wonder if the machines we make wonder if we have given them eternal life. What makes you think that a deity would give you eternal life...maybe ants have eternal life and you are just a biological machine meant to serve them by providing food droppings in secure areas as a byproduct, etc.

Lets stick to the science I think...and remember, even most spiritual folks see evolution as the "how" god did it instead of seeing it as proof that there is no deity

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Raggedyman

We can all pick and choose horrible murderous people that follow almost any belief religious or otherwise. Don't pretend Christianity is full of nothing but warm loving figure heads that kiss babies, pet puppies and never hurt a fly. Belief in a Sky Daddy makes not one iota of difference on that matter and you damn well know it.

Honestly, can you produce data to support the opinion?

Raggedy gave some examples, surely a proper rebuttal should include counter examples?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you see them as atheists sorry, just men who thought people evolved
Never mentioned atheism

Seeing as you brought it up though...

Oh so your fallacy is even sillier. You are equating believers in evolution to despots. Man... I gave you the benefit of the doubt and that your logic at least had a valid train of thought (albeit an extreme one). But in reality you were just pairing the silliest of things together to create dumb correlations.

How is it silly to equate those without regard for the value of human life with a theory that holds that ideas of the value of human life are misplaced?

A similar process occurs in the cells of our bodies. The same ATP process is present. The same factory like RNA strand process occurs in our cells too before the cells split.

These processes have been known of for a while, but some new more detailed information has become available with better tools to preform research being available now.

It is interesting to me but to most people it is something that they do not really think is necessary to know. They have a few good videos on this process in cells. I also took a future learn class on this subject, I did some side research to improve my understanding of it and to feel more secure that the information I was learning was appropriate. The futurelearn class is decently accurate but a little less in-depth than I desired but it did give me sources and keywords to be able to expand on the subject with the internet.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

Seems to me this rejection of modern sciences as of late is a direct result of upbringing.

Those that were brought up in a religious world are noticing that science tends to disagree with religion more and more as we find new discoveries. Thus the truely dedicated "religionist" fights against logic and reason because their holy texts are slowly becoming less relevant.

That is always the one common factor in all of these threads...

science is wrong because God is right

I've rarely seen athiests write such threads... if ever

Science is unable to make valid comment upon anything supernatural (which includes questions as to the existence of God). This does not mean that the supernatural does not exist. It means that science can only investigate the entirely natural.

As to atheists not writing 'such threads', are you unaware of the voluminous number of blog posts, interviews, confrences, debates and books produced by the 'new atheists' represented by such as Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Hirsi Ali and Richard Dawkins?

But we don't have to look that far, there is valid modern science that does not fit with and actively counters the specifics of Darwinian macroevolution (a good example was when Craig Venter suggested that DNA evidence suggested that life had multiple 'starts' and that rather than there being a single phylogenetic tree, that it was more like a number phylogenetic "bushes", yet Dawkins - ever the Darwinist - as opposed to an MES evolutionist - got all upset).

Yes, there are posters on ATS with an atheistic world view that ignore the implications of the 'actual science' and return to only looking at studies that don't rock the apple cart of their opinion. Might you be one of them, perhaps?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It's a sound one right now

While chemical abiogenesis is interesting and plausible, the total absence of end-to-end examples mean that it isn't a "strong" hypothesis by any means. To say so is an exaggeration and untrue.

Remember that God creating life, completely fully formed, out of nothing, is also a type of abiogenesis by definition. That is why I specify 'chemical abiogenesis' in such discussions.

, but even scientists don't agree it is real.

Because there is no end-to-end evidence. The only evidence is for a few individual process steps and that evidence is also somewhat circumstantial and open to different interpretation.

I have no need to debate the finer points of it with you. HOWEVER, if you are going to equate it with evolutionary theory, I will point that out and correct you. Plus there is no need to debate the details of your posts if you are going to precipitate your thread on a strawman fallacy (that abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are related).

There is a relationship in that both the genesis and diversification of life can hypothetically have natural explanation in scientifically observable processes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tovenar
I'm a Fortean with respect to the fossil record and hypothetical earth histories.

Life is an agent of order, versus entropy, any way you slice it. If evolution is true, it is still a problem to describe how the life force increases order in the universe over time, rather than decreases it.

No it isn't. The Earth isn't a closed system. It receives most of its energy from the sun. If the energy received from the sun exceeds the energy lost due to entropy (which it does) then there is no issue.

All environments are open systems if you proscribe a small enough boundary but that hardly enables you to cast off their compliance to thermodynamic laws like entropy.

An entropic direction to the overwhelming majority of chemical and mechanical processes is not negated simply by taking a myopic viewpoint.

a reply to: chr0naut

Science is unable to make valid comment upon anything supernatural (which includes questions as to the existence of God). This does not mean that the supernatural does not exist. It means that science can only investigate the entirely natural.

Of course... science does not deal with God in any way shape or form... which as you've stated, does not exclude the possibility of God... Its simply not something science is looking to find...Though I've heard the higgs-boson particle referred to as "the god particle"

s to atheists not writing 'such threads', are you unaware of the voluminous number of blog posts, interviews, confrences, debates and books produced by the 'new atheists' represented by such as Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Hirsi Ali and Richard Dawkins?

Obviously... which only reinforces my point...

None of them would ever write a thread or even make a suggestion such as this thread does... or his previous one for that matter

But we don't have to look that far, there is valid modern science that does not fit with and actively counters the specifics of Darwinian macroevolution (a good example was when Craig Venter suggested that DNA evidence suggested that life had multiple 'starts' and that rather than there being a single phylogenetic tree, that it was more like a number phylogenetic "bushes", yet Dawkins - ever the Darwinist - as opposed to an MES evolutionist - got all upset).

Scientists have various theories on evolution... they debate back and forth on said ideas, and sometimes it gets heated...

They do not discount a theory or suggest its impossible unless proven to be...

Yes, there are posters on ATS with an atheistic world view that ignore the implications of the 'actual science' and return to only looking at studies that don't rock the apple cart of their opinion. Might you be one of them, perhaps?

I am as far from Athiest as it gets... just so you know...

but i do not dismiss scientific theory or process as our OP does

Which brings us back to my orginal statement... science is wrong because God did it... that is the basis for every single one of these threads... Even if is not directly stated... its perfectly obvious

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: TREESNAKE1111

Data is not information. It only becomes information when structured by humans. It is a deep concept, but one that considers if humans create all information, then we are the creators of the conceptualization of the universe.

I strongly disagree.

Information still exists in systems, especially mathematically organized ones such as our universe, regardless of if it is observed.

Humans are a consequence of the structure of the universe, not the opposite.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tovenar

Do the pieces of old cars lying in a junkyard get "coincidentally" blown into the shape of a '57 Chevy that runs? No? But life did; not from broken parts that were once alive, but from some ribose molecules floating in water...

Well you just compared a human artifact that humans designed knowing fully well how it will behave to organic material that originated from molecules and atoms created in a star. There is a big difference there.

Yes. A big difference.

It is far more mathematically probable that an explosion in a junkyard will create an operational Chevy than that life will arise entirely from natural processes.

Yet, here we are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Raggedyman

There is no way anyone is going to discuss abiogenesis
Maybe only if they can try and confuse the argument of abiogenesis with evolution but it's clear you have differentiated the issues

To try to separate abiogenesis from evolution is to ignore the beginning template for evolution. If the starting template for evolution could not have formed through ordinary material means, then the tower of evolution falls, and people are free to think for themselves again.

Bull#. God could have created the first life (which means the origin of life is Biogenesis instead of Abiogenesis) and life could have evolved from there. You are creating a false equivalency here.

Surely abiogenesis is a specific subtype of biogenesis?

a reply to: Barcs

There is absolutely zero evidence that any simpler form of self replicating life than the one in the OP ever existed.

How do you explain this?

a reply to: stormcell

If this is true why did it only happen once in 4 billion years?

If it's such a simple problem to solve you would imagine many different non DNA structures of life forming on a planet that seems perfect for life.

DNA is like an engine. We have steam engines, gas engines, electric engines which all work differently. Why when it comes to life do we have only one engine?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Barcs

There is absolutely zero evidence that any simpler form of life than the one in the OP ever existed.

How do you explain this?

Pretty sure Mycoplasma bacteria is a simpler form of life then what is suggested in the OP

a reply to: Akragon

Ok, simplest form of self replicating life without a host. Is that better?

a reply to: Isurrender73

Well it explained your question lol...

and that's just what we know...

a reply to: Isurrender73

If this is true why did it only happen once in 4 billion years?

Straw-man argument. Who says it 'only happen once in 4 billion years'? It could be happening RIGHT NOW all over the place - how would you know?. And remember, the current conditions on earth are not those that held early in the Earth's lifetime.

If it's such a simple problem to solve

Straw-man argument again. It is not necessarily simple, but it is clearly controlled by the laws of Chemistry and Physics.

you would imagine many different non DNA structures of life forming on a planet that seems perfect for life.

Another Straw-man. Maybe there was 'many different non-DNA structures of life' at some time or the other. Maybe there were many all existing at the same time in early history of life, but DNA base life was more robust, more efficient, whatever. Maybe non-DNA life just never evolved into anything after hitting the self-sustaining chemical reaction. Maybe the non-DNA based life form chemical processes were 'borrowed' by the DNA processes.

Also, the conditions that exist on Earth right now, were created by life.

DNA is like an engine. We have steam engines, gas engines, electric engines which all work differently. Why when it comes to life do we have only one engine?

You draw a false simile here, in order to raise yet another straw-man argument.

While it is true that we have external combustion engines, internal combustion engines, electrical motors, etc. It is equally true that we have birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.

You seem to be the master of straw-man arguments here. There is simply no evidence that there is not other kinds of life forms - other than we don't see any at the present time. Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Barcs

There is absolutely zero evidence that any simpler form of self replicating life than the one in the OP ever existed.

How do you explain this?

It's explained by how the process of per-mineralization works. Not everything is preserved and the simpler the organism is, the less likely it is for fossilization to occur. For the majority of evidence of ancient Archaea, they don't actually find fossilized remains, they find chemical signatures in the rock that show that the organisms had been there.

Not having the fossilized remains of ancient organisms and relying on the chemical signatures they leave behind only shows that Archaea were present, not how complex or simple the organisms were. The Archaea shown in the OP are from modern examples, not 3.5 BA or earlier as they try to claim. We only know that there was simple forms of life dating back that far, not how complex they were so the premise that we don't have an example of a simpler life form isn't the same thing as a simpler precursor not existing. There is plenty of evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis that implies that there were RNA based organisms prior to DNA based organisms.

It also doesn't mean that there was no other molecular engine, only that carbon based life relying on DNA is what has survived until this day. Is this all hypothetical? Absolutely. But I find it ironic that the people who protest against science so much, qualifying their position by claiming that science is blind and only works to prop up preconceived notions while ignoring all other possibilities, are themselves ignoring any possibility other than more informed by their faith. Irony is a beautiful thing sometimes.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Surely abiogenesis is a specific subtype of biogenesis?

The prefix "A" before a word generally means NOT or WITHOUT. Biogenensis means the development of life from existing life. Abiogenesis = NOT biogenesis. It's not a subtype of biogenesis any more than atheism is a subtype of theism. They are near opposites.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Barcs

There is absolutely zero evidence that any simpler form of self replicating life than the one in the OP ever existed.

How do you explain this?

Easily. We can't go back several billion years in time to observe the very first life, and there is very likely no remnants of it in terms of fossils, let alone genetic structure that we can study and compare to modern life. The structure is a bit of a mystery, although there are many hypotheses. To assume even the most simple cell today is the same as it was prior to 3-4 billion years of evolution is absurd. Peter explained it very well above.