Abiogenesis

Why, Rob, would you repost something saying that both sides have no clue when it was pointed out to hoot (you before edit) that one side does, in fact, have a rather large number of clues?Did it slip your mind already?(ps sorry about the original mistake in attribution)Edited by NosyNed, : To correct a mistake in attribution.

My main interest with abiogenesis concerns its immense challenge to scientific understanding. It strikes me as odd that scientists have not yet completely explained abiogenesis, including laboratory demonstrations. But this biological mystery is far from being solved. Why? Obviously, there are important principles we have not yet discovered. There is little doubt that abiogenesis involved physicochemical principles and sequences. Those principles and sequences, however, must have included the evolution of a digital code with an alphabet. Some trick for Mother Nature in her soup kitchen! So now she makes alphabet soup?Rob, from your POV as a Creationist, I'd think you'd want to hop right on the back this blind horse and take him for a jolly ride, hollering, 'You see. Scientists might know a few important things about the molecules but they don't know enough important things about the words, especially those of the Creator.'Just a suggestion.”HM

Nosy, you wrote: If you're talking about the scientific side, I'd question how you would measure a "large number of clues." Obviously, there is not a large-enough number of clues to drive the first Model T microbe out of the lab.”HM

Bad suggestion if you ask me. Why? Where's an explanation? This argument you're telling him to use is essentially a "god of the gaps". It has zero explanatory power as to how life came about. "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer. Why? because the question is "How?", not "Who?". And saying "god did it" still leaves you trying to explain how he did it.

hey rob, there are a few threads about radioactive dating that are semi-active.here's a link to RAZD's thread (which is actually about age of earth, but radioactive dating is in there):
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)here's another one, the title says carbon dating, but something tells me there's more in there. mind you, I haven't read through this thread, so I don't have a clue as to it's quality:
http://EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon dating -->EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon datingand I'll say this about your PNT--you're not being silenced. You just have a bad OP--anyone, regardless of their affiation, would not get that through the PNT system.I'm just posting this here so that you can check out some of the threads about this subject. I highly reccommend RAZD's thread--although it does deal with more than radioactive dating, the topic is the age of the earth and the evidence we have.

The difference is a number of clues to zero for the other side. Abiogenesis doesn't have to produce anything like a microbe so that is a classic non-sequiter. What it might need to produce we have examples of in the lab. Chemistry on the score board ->> goddidit - zero.

Kuresu says: and NosyNed says: Do either of you know for sure that it wasn't a microbe? Would you mind telling me then just what it was that abiogenesis produced. And what were the magic ingredients? What was magic temperature? Did it require stirring, mixing, shaking, boiling, freezing, evaporation, or precipitation? Did it initiate heritable properties? Please clue me in on these and other basic questions. We oughtta know at least these few simple facts. Otherwise, quit bitching at rob for saying that goddidit.Even Darwin invoked the Creator, whether he believed in one or not.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

The original statement that you (I think it was, I tend to forget these things ) made was that neither side has a clue.We all (I think) agree that the details (and even bigger parts) of abiogensis are unknown. (In fact some would agree that they may be always unknown if a high degree of certainty is wanted).However you said there was no clue. I say there are clues. One clue is that we can get self replicators from very simple chemisty (simple compared to a microbe). That doesn't guarentee that it wasn't a microbe but we all have already agreed that a modern 'microbe' is an unlikely first step. If imperfect self replicators can form it is also an unnecessary first step.From the chemistry and biology we have uncovered in the last decade or so we have a clue that there probably doesn't have to be a "magic temperature". A wider range of temperatures than found in a "warm pond" would probably work.If it required any of "stirring, mixing, shaking, boiling, freezing, evaporation, or precipitation" it isn't unreasonable to expect those to happen a lot in a couple of hundred million years so I don't know why you would ask the question.By definition, (well, to the degree that we can agree on a definition of life) it had to intiate heritable properties so that isn't a useful question is it?To remind you again: You didn't say neither side had any complete, certain answers. You said neither side has a clue. I agree one side hasn't a clue. The other has been finding clues, especially over the last decade and some.

Well, yes, there are clues, as you say. Self-replicating molecules are known to occur experimentally, and that would seem almost like an incipient heridity. I don't disagree with what you and kuresu are saying. But I'm always interested in the principles and assumptions that lead us forward.There is this massive opinion that abiogenesis HAD to happen on Earth. My own view of the universe, or just the Milky Way galaxy, makes tiny Earth seem like little more than just another bio-friendly rock (if stochastic projection is allowed). So, in my view, the problem of solving abiogenesis is terribly complicated by the principle of panspermia. There are Earth-firsters who assume without question that Earth must have been the Mother of All Life in the Universe, when all she is, probably, is just another bio-friendly rock with a few warm puddles. Is it fair to assume that Earth's puddles represent a universal standard for abiogenesis? Our sample size of one is way too small to measure a universal central tendency. And furthermore we know of only one kind of life. Is abiogenesis supposed to produce only DNA/RNA life? These are basic question that still elude answers.”HM

The goalposts now seem to have achieved warpspeed.Consideration of panspermia is a very reasonable one considering all the evidence of extraterrestrial amino acids that we have. But speculation on alternative modes of life based on different genetic or pseudogenetic material is reaching pretty much into the realm of science fiction.TTFN,WK

Which scenario for explaining life on Earth is more probable: Earthly abiogenesis or panspermia?Answer: The second scenario, because it doesn't require an Earthly abiogenesis, which removes a limiting factor and raises its likelihood.This of course leaves abiogenesis itself unexplained. It may be that way forever if it truly was an extraterrestrially exotic event. Given enough time, NASA will have explored Mars and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, probing into their watery domains, if they have 'em, to find traces of life. I expect they will eventually find those traces, and then panspermia will get more respect.”HM

Only if they are demonstrated to have some relationship to life on earth. If not it will reduce the bets on panspermia.(I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to why that might be.)

On the other hand, panspermia requires transportation of "something" to earth, which is also a limiting factor - maybe a larger one.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Panspermia is another one of those copout answers that sounds profound but really has no meaning or value. It's an easy escape into the world of fantasy where magic buttons grow.The fact is that there is life. That is a given.There are lots and lots of possible origins. We may well find that life is a pretty normal chemical reaction and that what type of life results is simply a result of the initial environment, starting material and available catalysts.But the folk that trot out the magic button of panspermia are not much different than those who trot out the magic button of Goddidit.Right now we have one sample, so the best course is to study that one sample. If someday we have two samples, then we can study both. In the mean time, trotting out any magic button is pointless and a waste of time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can't agree with this, Jar. For sure, the panspermia hypothesis is based on very limited evidence (mostly, as far as I'm aware, on the presence of animo acids in the aftermath of supernovae), but the concept of life spreading around the comsmos by means of the stellar lifecycle hardly strikes me as "Goddidit".It's certainly a potentially testable hypothesis.