Abiogenesis

Kuresu:Take it easy there Pilgrim...The book you are talking about is a textbook on the subject of Abiogenesis. In it, Kenyon and Gary Steinman posited the theory that life was biochemically predestined by nothing more than chemical laws.It is Kenyon himself who gave up the idea because of the enormous complexities found since then. So it is Kenyon who, based on the current knowledge you are speaking of to this day, refutes the concept of Abiogeneisis.I think the basic concept is this (but this is my understanding and not Kenyon's per se):
The more complex the system, the less attributable by chance it can be. With biology, we have the most complex system in the known universe without peer. Not to mention it is sitting in a system which it is dependant upon to exist. In fact we have layer upon layer of systems from the atomic to the galactic. Are any of them unnecessary for life?Probabilities being what they are, all of that is based upon what we do know. Perhaps new evidence will come in, is that what you are looking for?Do you wish to refute these ideas, or is this thread only looking for pro-evidence of abiogenesis?All I did... was show that Kenyon (who was not a 'biased and devious prejudicial Christian like me' at the time of his rejection of abiogenesis. And may still not be... I don't know) rejected his own theory because of the new knowledge you are talking about.And as biology shows itself to be more and more complex (not less) the problem for abiogenesis only gets worse Kuresu... not better.In my opinion (as valueless as it may be to you and the other 'optimists') all the new evidence works against abiogenesis, not for it. Optimism abounds yes... but imagination is not equal to reality.Reality has no equal...
As C.S. Lewis said somewhere, 'we could never have thought of it'. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Putting aside the age of the reference, Kenyon has done nothing new here when he says: This is basically saying "It's too complex, therefore it couldn't have evolved". No reason is given other than it being 'too complex'. This is nothing more than the famous argument from incredulity. Until someone can determine a point where something becomes 'complex' and a substantial reason is put forth as to why 'chemical evolution' cannot produce something of such 'complexity', it is a pretty empty argument.

Thor:Kenyon put forth the notion that amino acids are attracted to each other by mere natural laws. What he actually found durring the testing of this theory, was that amino acids do not have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences. So neither He, nor I, am sugessting that it is not posible. All we can say is that the conditions and laws needed for abiogenesis have never been observed.There is another rub that is often overlooked. The scientists who are manipulating matter and supposed conditions in the lab, are by definition 'intelligent agents'. If they are able to produce some burnt slime after zapping a chemical soup (while making massive and unverifiable assumptions about theoretical atmospheric conditions on the early earth), can they really say that 'such an experiment proves that it is possible without intelligent guidance'?As for it being too simple. It is simple Thor. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is a totally faith based concept. Kenyon proposed a theory on how it might have occured. He was a very ambitious 'evolutionary biologist'. Turned out he was wrong. At least he has the gumption to admit it.Complexitiy does not mean abiogenesis is not possible. I only ask for you to show me how it is?Let me ask you this... Could an automobile have evolved without intelligent agents designing it? It is nowhere near as complex as biology. In fact it's parts can be reduced very easily. I've done a little wrenching on cars in my day. You don't need a degree in medicine. All man made things break down into simpler and simpler parts. God's creation only get's more complex as we look deeper into the layers of dependancy within the system.So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is natural, then why do we so with life?Forget theory and inuendo... where are the laws and evidence to explain these things with the observations we do have?Do they exist?

Yes, of course they can. Like all of Kenyon's arguments, it is simply incredulity. Nonsense Rob. Of course there is evidence for abiogenesis. There was a time when there were no living things on earth. There are now living things on earth. Therefore abiogenesis happened.And the rest of your post is just more of the argument from incredulity.If and when you have something more than "I don't believe it" why don't you post it here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar:Are you implying very cleverly that it would be incredulous to think otherwise?So... let me get this straight...You are also saying that Kenyons arguments are not credible because they are mere incredulity in the final assesment.Thanks jar! I needed that today...

to which Rob replied:

quote:

---

Are you implying very cleverly that it would be incredulous to think otherwise?

---

No, I am saying it would be false and a sign of ignorance and dishonesty to say otherwise.The fact is that the evidence shows there was a time when there was no living things on earth. We can see that there are living things on earth now. Therefore, abiogenesis happened. Like Evolution, Abiogenesis is a Fact. We are still working to develop a Theory of Abiogenesis that explains how it happened as well as the Theory of Evolution explains the life we see about us, but that Abiogenesis happened is not an issue. No, I am saying that Kenyon made a classic error of logic, that the book you site is NOT a text book, but simply his opinion. I am saying that it was written based on very old data relative to what is known now, that the sites that use it as a source know that, and they include it in the stuff they market simply because they know that their audience has been conditioned not to question or reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If they are able to produce some burnt slime after zapping a chemical soup (while making massive and unverifiable assumptions about theoretical atmospheric conditions on the early earth), can they really say that 'such an experiment proves that it is possible without intelligent guidance'?

---

Well, yes. If the composition and conditions in the experiment are believed to be similar to that in the early earth, and the processes mimic what are believed to be processes operating on the early earth, then, yes, it proves it is possible.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Question: Do you assume that abiogenesis necessarily had to happen on planet Earth? If so, could you provided the reasoning to support this? I bring this up because geocentrism too often goes unquestioned on this forum. Biologically speaking, we are still largely Earth-bound on this matter of abiogenesis.Obviously, abiogenesis happened...somewhere. The key question is whether it happened on a multi-regional basis (many origins) or on a single-origin basis. If biological life is a one-off, which is often the prevailing assumption, then we know Earth was the scene of that glorious event. And it may have been so, because we know of ONLY ONE kind of life. Perhaps the greatest mystery in biology”even more mysterious than abiogenesis”is this appearance of "organizational singularity," if I may. One might expect to see several competing kinds of life”say DNA/RNA life fighting it out with carbonate crystalline life”to take advantage of available resouces. (Schrdinger might have called it "aperiodic crystalline life" vs. "periodic crystalline life.") But there simply is no evidence of a "beta-max" competitor that lost the mighty struggle for our biosphere. Biological life is the only kind we know of, and there is only one kind of it”life with coded nucleic acids. How strange!Now, if that abiogenic stuggle went on somehwere else besides Earth, then why would we expect to see any evidence of it here?”HM

No, we do not know where Abiogenesis first happened. Irrelevant and immaterial.We are here. Life is here. This is the easiest place to search. That does not preclude also looking in other places but we do have the lab here called Earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your lab is way too small to accommodate the improbability of abiogenesis. If it happened once, and only here, then why isn't happening here all the time? Why is your lab so good for abiogenesis one time in its histroy and not so good for it at another? Mother Earth may be old but she still seems to have plenty of bio-friendly tits.”HM

Yet more total irrelevancies and inanity.We know that at one time life did not exist on Earth. We know that life now exists on Earth.The rest of your post is simply incredulity and misdirection.We know that the conditions on Earth today are far different than they were when life first appeared on Earth.We know that every environmental niche we have looked in so far here on Earth already contains life. It is highly likely that any new critter that did come into existence, assuming conditions today are such that abiogenesis might be possible, would most likely simply become food for whatever happened to be occupying the niche currently.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So, because we exist it proves abiogenesis correct. But wait a minute. The bible says god created us. We exist, so that proves creation correct.

No. Not correct.The fact that we exist proves that Abiogenesis happened. It says nothing about the process.We are still working on the theory of Abiogenesis, the model that explains the evidence we see. Not at all. Again, simply a false analogy. There is no question that the Biblical Creation stories are not literally true. But beyond that, Science simply doesn't address those things which simply can not be tested or known.Personally I believe that GOD created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen.That is not an explanation though of HOW Abiogenesis happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That aside, I was just trying to find a good analogy to keep in mind that it's always possible that the first living thing was created and didn't have to come to life through abiogenesis.

But that is a nonsense statement. Abiogenesis simply is asking HOW non-living things became living.It is always a possibility that it was some act of creation, but that still tells us nothing. The question would remain, "How did God do it?"That is what Science studies.As I said, I happen to believe that GOD created all that is seen and unseen. But that says nothing about "how God did it." The model or theory of Abiogenesis that will finally be developed will help answer that question, just as the Theory of Evolution explains how God created all the living things we see around us and in the records.The fact that Abiogenesis happened, or that one day we will have a Theory of Abiogenesis is no more a threat to the idea that God created all that is, seen and unseen, than is the Theory of Evolution.It is only those who worship a small and picayune God that worries about the issue of Abiogenesis. The rest of us understand that all we will learn from the study of Abiogenesis is "How GOD did it!"Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion