abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

OK - It's that time again - time to "Deny Ignorance".

So the question is:

Is the abioGenesis hypothesis - scientific or just a silly idea?

Based on established facts, logic and common sense - I can confidently say it's just a silly idea! Or to be precise an idea based on a silly ancient philosophy masquerading as science.

No way you say? Well then read on and judge for yourself!

Fact is the very definition and the origin of this hypothesis will show you exactly just that - a silly old baseless idea.

Here's one.

According to various websites and dictionaries and encyclopedias - Abiogenesis comes down to this simple definition / explanation:

Definition for abiogenesis:

Web definitions:

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

www.google.com... l0&aqi=g4s1&pbx=1

As to its origin - biology-online.org explains it simply this way:

Abiogenesis
(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.

www.biology-online.org...

From a more technical perspective (written in somewhat lame imitation of the book of Genesis), the book "EARTH SCIENCE - The Story of O2" - by Richard A. Kerr June 2005 explains the abioGenesis hypothesis this way:

In the beginning, Earth was devoid of oxygen, and then life arose from nonlife. As that first life evolved over a billion years, it began to produce oxygen, but not enough for the life-energizing gas to appear in the atmosphere. Was green scum all there was to life, all there ever would be? Apparently, yes, unless life and nonlife could somehow work together to oxygenate the planet from the atmosphere to the deep sea.
…..Historians of oxygen have always agreed on one thing: Earth started out with no free oxygen--that is, diatomic oxygen, or O2. It was all tied up in rock and water. For half a century, researchers have vacillated over whether the gases that were there favored the formation of life's starting materials (see sidebar, p. 1732). Without free oxygen, in any case, the first life that did appear by perhaps 3.5 billion years ago had to "breathe" elements such as iron, processing them to gain a mere pittance of energy. For decades, scientists have argued about just how long the planet remained anoxic, and thus home to nothing but tiny, simple, slow-living microorganisms. (p 1730—1732) "

For an extensive explanation see the following link:

here: en.wikipedia.org...
here: en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

There you go.

So in short - Abiogenesis is a "hypothesis" based on "ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter" or "how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes".

As already mentioned this idea is not new. In fact it goes even way back before the time when it was taught by Greek philosophers such as Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle. It goes all the way back to ancient Egypt. Then was later on (in the 17th century) picked up again by scientists like Francis Bacon and William Harvey, and then further advanced by the discovery of bacteria (as seemingly appearing from nowhere). Only to be debunked a century later by Dr. Louie Pasteur when he proved scientifically beyond doubt that life comes only from life.

Today, this silliness still abound because even though it's still the same baseless unproven hypothesis, die-hard proponents of this idea continue to accept it as fact. Just like the flat-earthers,they blindly accept it as if it actually happened absent of true scientific evidence. They shrug off and ridicule those who reject it and bully those who question it. I guess they have no choice but to do so. They have no choice but to hold unto it - no matter how silly it is - because not doing so will render the evolution theory foundationless (although some try to separate the two as though they are not related).

Still, no matter how they defend it, the truth is the truth. This hypothesis is still a silly philosophical idea masquerading as science. It is made more sillier today by technological advancements. Inspite of the latest and greatest instruments and advancing knowledge in the field of science, scientists had not come up with a clear and logical answers to such simple questions as the ones listed below (I'll just mention a few out of hundreds to keep it short).

That is:

1) What was Earth's primitive atmosphere like?



Scientists admit that NO one really knows what the earth's true primitive atmosphere was like since no one was present when this supposedly "spontaneous generation" occurred. All they can do is - speculate. And speculate they did even if the idea is so silly. Case in point: "EARTH SCIENCE - The Story of O2" or the "Selfish Gene" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, and many more.

Next q:

2) Was there a guiding causal power / force behind the emergence of the elemental materials?



That is, if such atmosphere did exist (as speculated by scientists), who or what was responsible for controlling the proper mixture of the gases? Who was controlling the destructive forces that created the gases? In other words, who or what was protecting the newly formed amino acids so that they are not destroyed by the very forces and elements that created them? After all in the labs, the ONLY way to prevent these complex molecules from being destroyed was to remove them from the very environment they were created in/from.



And then going further:

3) Why only left-handed molecules for life are used?



When amino acids are formed at random it was discovered that they come in two forms that are chemically the same. Interestingly one is a “right-handed” molecule and the other a “left-handed” molecule. They are all mixed together, in about equal numbers of each kind. But in living organisms only “left-handed” amino acids are used. So who or what was responsible for choosing the “left-handed” amino acids? Furthermore there are literally hundreds if not thousands of amino acids. In fact the simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. So next obvious Q is:

4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?



Not only that the “left-handed” amino acids are picked from the "mixture of left and right-handed amino acids" but that they are placed in the correct sequence to form the correct protein chain. If one of these amino acids is out of sequence or out place the result will be disastrous. ...

cont...

...cont...

Remember also, while this complex process was taking place, the same destructive environment (that's creating these complex molecules) will need to be put under control otherwise the acids themselves will be destroyed. If this can't be done then the other option is to remove them from the destructive environment. But move them from where? Move them from the high atmosphere to the evolutionary sea called "organic soup"? If this is what supposedly happened then how was this achieved and by what means? And while in transit another vital steps needs to take place! A protective membrane needs to be created. But...


5) How can such cell membrane appear in such deadly environment?



Think about this. While the proteins are being formed they needed to create their own membranous tissue in order to form the cell membrane. And according to biologist, the membrane tissue itself is extremely complex made up of sugar, protein and fatty molecules, and governs what substances can or cannot enter and leave the cell. Without the membrane no cell will be formed. Frustratingly at these stage - scientist have no idea how such fatty globules appeared or evolved. But without the fats there could be no membrane; without the membrane, no living organisms - no life.

This problem was recognized way back in 1960 by Dr. D. E. Hull as stated in scientific magazine Nature. It confirms:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . 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.” - Nature - May 28, 1960

Did you get that one? It said the environment that spontaneously generated compounds is more effective in "decomposing" them rather than constructing them.
Interestingly this problem persists even in this day and age.

Commenting on a latest experiment conducted by a team of scientists, the Nature magazine stated:

The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and BéatriceGerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.

Seems to be a success huh? But not so, says:

Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, [who] said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”

Further, the article states (like I said):

A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist. Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn,”referring to a chemical operation that can affect a molecule’s handedness.

www.nytimes.com...
So there you go, insurmountable problems facing evolutionists - even today.

Sadly close minded and unreasonable evolutionists will ignore such basic scientific and logical questions and many will just fall back to the same old tired reply:

"It does not matter because we're here" and go on living their lives in a fantasy land of make believe, believing in such silly philosophical ideas as "abiogenesis" - the "spontaneous generation of life from non living matter". Many whether they know it or not just take it on FAITH hoping that someday an answer will present itself. In the meantime they go on deceiving themselves as well as others of what "coulda- woulda" occurred while ignoring the undeniable and established fact that:

L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E - from J e ho v a h God the Grand Creator!
tc.

I enjoyed the little cartoons.. However, saying that it all came from god, only puts the question back one step further and accomplishes nothing.. Where did this creator come from? Who created the creator, and who created that creator. You end up with an infinite regression of the same questions.

L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E

I just have to say this is one of the silliest threads I've ever read.

And I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?

This hypothesis is still a silly philosophical idea masquerading as science

But the Christian god and myths aren't??? There is nothing sillier than modern Christianity.

By the way, just because we don't know yet why something happened (like the left handed molecules), is not proof that god did it. That's no different than cavemen thinking that lightning was god throwing a tantrum.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
I enjoyed the little cartoons.. However, saying that it all came from god, only puts the question back one step further and accomplishes nothing.. Where did this creator come from? Who created the creator, and who created that creator. You end up with an infinite regression of the same questions.

So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.

So the real question is - which one make sense?

Like I said before - if we can accept things that are beyond our understanding like "quantum entanglement", black holes, event horizon and many more phenomenon.

Why is it hard to accept an always existing supernatural Being?

Know what I mean?

tc

reply to post by edmc^2

Everything that is, has to have a beginning. The Universe and everything in it had a beginning. If there was a creator of the universe, the creator also has to have had a beginning.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E

I just have to say this is one of the silliest threads I've ever read.

And I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?

So why do you find "L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E" is silly?

I'm curious.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Everything that is, has to have a beginning. The Universe and everything in it had a beginning. If there was a creator of the universe, the creator also has to have had a beginning.

And yet if there are things we know and accept to have no beginning or end - such space and time, why not the Creator?

reply to post by edmc^2

So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.

Actually it would be more accurate to say everything came from nothing, rather than was created by nothing.

The Theory of NoThing

So the real question is - which one make sense?

There is absolutely no logic in assuming an intelligent being has always existed. If you would like to explain how that works I am all ears.

reply to post by edmc^2

And yet if there are things we know and accept to have no beginning or end - such space and time, why not the Creator?

There is no solid evidence proving time and space has always existed... but it very well might have. But even if it did, that is not surprising because they are fundamental aspects of reality. You are suggesting some type of vastly complex intelligent being could just magically have always existed for some unexplained reason. That doesn't make sense.

source field intelligently combines elements into microbicidal life

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by edmc^2

 

And yet if there are things we know and accept to have no beginning or end - such space and time, why not the Creator?

There is no solid evidence proving time and space has always existed... but it very well might have. But even if it did, that is not surprising because they are fundamental aspects of reality. You are suggesting some type of vastly complex intelligent being could just magically have always existed for some unexplained reason. That doesn't make sense.

why does it have to being? why can't it just be intelligence? there is an intelligence within you constantly creating the body no? turning food into body. thats the same intelligence that created everything else

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.

Actually it would be more accurate to say everything came from nothing, rather than was created by nothing.

The Theory of NoThing

So the real question is - which one make sense?

There is absolutely no logic in assuming an intelligent being has always existed. If you would like to explain how that works I am all ears.

Actually the "nothing" that you speak of is not really nothing - but something - in a form of energy. It's so small, that we're not able to see it even with the most powerful instruments we have - i.e. Particle Collider.

But using Einstein's famous formula E = m c 2, we know that matter is a form of energy. That Energy can transformed into matter vice-versa.

So the real question is - where did Energy came from? Did it always existed or did it had a beginning?

What say you?

Your answer to this is the key to your second Q:

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

And I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?

This is one of the silliest most redundant questions I've ever heard.

Very simply there must be a causeless cause at some point. Your silly question suggests an infinite number of retro generations. Which is absolutely impossible. Which leaves us with only one possibility a causeless cause.
Unless you've seen ...

A magic show that happens without a magician.
A program happen without a programmer.
Mechanics happen without a mechanic.

Explain existence and please don't sound silly.

As always Ed a very well put together and intelligent thread.
SnF
Typo

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.

Actually it would be more accurate to say everything came from nothing, rather than was created by nothing.

The Theory of NoThing

So the real question is - which one make sense?

There is absolutely no logic in assuming an intelligent being has always existed. If you would like to explain how that works I am all ears.

yes everything did come from "no thing". that void that is god, that void that is within every one of us we cover up with beliefs and attachments. that void is complete pure intelligence lacking any persona until it becomes localized and personified.

Basically, all "living" or "non-living" things are made of atoms

Since life comes only from life, it should be deduced that atoms are alive, way up to the biggest star.

Tesla thought that what we called inanimate matter was alive, but on a scale and in a way we couldn't perceive.

If the greatest mind saw it that way, it's good for me.

Now, if everything in the universe is alive, it has a creator. I know, where did He/It came from?

I couldn't tell. I have my limits.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

And I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?

This is one of the silliest most redudant questions I've ever heard.

Very simply there must be a causeless cause at some point. Your silly question suggests an infinite number of retro generations. Which is absolutely impossible. Which leaves us with only one possibility a causeless cause.
Unless you've seen ...

A magic show that happens without a magician.
A program happen without a programmer.
Mechanics happen without a mechanic.

Explain existence and please don't sound silly.

As always Ed a very well put together and intelligent thread.
SnF

edit on 1-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Thanks randyvs.

I say let the silly ones reveal themselves.

tc

reply to post by edmc^2

So the real question is - where did Energy came from? Did it always existed or did it had a beginning?

Clearly you did not even read my thread. The whole purpose of that thread was to explain where all the energy came from, and how energy can in fact come from absolutely nothing.


reply to post by randyvs

Unless you've seen ...

A magic show that happens without a magician.
A program happen without a programmer.
Mechanics happen without a mechanic.

No doubt you're going to say "but a programmer was required to build that framework"... and that is certainly true, a programmer did create the framework in which programs can build themselves. That brings us to the most important question... did God simply create this Universe so that evolution could play out in a natural way.

This is something I posted about this a few months ago:

The Universe is one big random process that isn't being consciously controlled by anyone or anything. THINGS JUST HAPPEN. The result can be beautiful and wondrous. There is little excitement in watching the behavior of something one has created, for they know everything about it.

It is much more interesting to watch the development and behavior of something which has developed through natural random processes. The Universe may simply be the equivalent of our little computer simulations which develop solutions on their own.

I do not discount the possibility this Universe was initiated by some sort of intelligence, it's perfectly possible. I discount the claim that evolution cannot work, because it clearly can. If you accept that random things are allowed to happen in a Universe which is potentially infinite, any and all things will happen, there's no way around that. No matter how unlikely you may think it is for simple organisms to spontaneously form themselves, it will eventually happen.

And even if this Universe was initiated by some higher intelligence, it's still absurd to believe that intelligence could just have always existed for no apparent reason. It had to come from some where, there has to be a logical reason for why it is there and how it became to know so much. There's zero logic in assuming such a complex intelligence could "just be"... that's vastly more absurd and illogical than assuming complex processes can form complex structures naturally given enough time.

How is it not silly to believe in an omnipotent, immortal god that no one's ever seen???

We can do tests to prove scientific theories, but there is no proof whatsoever of any god.