abiogenesis

Hi marc9000, welcome to the fray.I agree with your assessment that the term "abiogenesis" cannot include creation, given that the definition involves naturalistic processes. I think when someone says "creationism is a theory of abiogenesis", what they mean to say is that creationism is an explanation (I disagree and consider it a non-explanation) that replaces abiogenesis. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps another member will set us both straight. But I ask you this... what explanation? Where's the evidence for creation? What possible usefulness is it in the exploration of the history of life to simply say "OK it MUST have been divine intervention, a supernatural miracle" ? The enquiry ends with this cop-out, non-explanation, and scientists are not willing to sacrifice rational thinking in favour of magical fairy dust, sorry. I would disagree with this assessment. The longer we study the possibile scenarios for abiogenesis, the closer we come to viable explanations. Take for example the PAH world hypothesis: I consider it uncanny that the separation between rings in a PAH stack is 0.34nm, precisely the same separation found in RNA and DNA. This hypothesis may not be the answer, but it is much more compelling than the bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, that an intelligent designer was involved. Let me try.The scientific community does have strict criteria, and "intelligent design" simply doesn't meet it. (Hypotheses regarding abiogenesis do rise to the necessary criteria, and your proposition that they do not is simply false.) All of this isn't the scientific community's fault, it is the fault of ID proponents who, in THEIR haste to posit an intelligent designer have failed to demonstrate any evidence of such a designer. Irreducible complexity has been demonstrated (in a court of law) to be wrong. The courts have determined that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology or alchemy. Would you like the schools to teach those subjects as if they were supported by evidence? No? Then why would you support the teaching of intelligent design?"Non-scientific bias" ? Science education inherently has a bias against non-scientific ideas, that's why it is called "science" and not "anything goes". Would you have it any other way?This "atheist bias" that you speak of simply doesn't exist: there are plenty of people who accept the scientific approach (and the exclusion of nonsense, non-explanations like ID) and yet call themselves agnostics or deists, not atheists. Hopefully RAZD will join this thread: he is a deist, and thus believes in God, but he would not be willing to allow unsupported, unevidenced pseudo-science into our schools, intelligent design being an example.The onus is on YOU (ID proponents) to provide evidence for your assertion of an intelligent designer. In the meantime, the scientific community will continue to examine things on a rational, logical basis, and not resort to pseudo-science and bare, unsupported assertions.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Hi greyseal biogenesis = life from life
abiogenesis = life from non-lifeIn that sense, I agree with you, although I have come across several definitions that include the words "through natural processes" or "spontaneous generation".Besides, "god breathed life into adam" isn't exactly a theory is it? It's an assertion, unsupported by evidence and unfalsifiable.Nonetheless I see your point and use this post to modify my stance above to say that creationism is a (pseudo) explanation for abiogenesis.

Hi greysealI'm in complete agreement with your above post. There are many, with the PAH World Hypothesis being one of the most compelling (imo).---- correction: as bluejay and others point out, these are hypotheses, not theories. ----I've been wanting to start an abiogenesis thread for some time now, but I'm more inclined to debate the scientific possibilities, whereas (as is inherent to the forum) it usually comes down to more of science vs superstition debate. Seeing as how I (and you as well I suspect) am thoroughly unimpressed by the supernatural explanations, I'd rather not waste my time on them when discussing the specifics of abiogenesis.What I would be most interested to learn is if any of the various abiogenesis theories is being put to a "test" (if such test is even possible). For example, I'd love to know if the PAH World Hypothesis is testable. No doubt that, if it is, these tests are ongoing.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : hypotheses, not theories

Hi marc9000Glad to see you have returned to the thread and weren't just one of those single-post anomalies.I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.I simply want to add one crucial point. The notion of "design" has been discussed in depths in other threads, and I would encourage you to search the forums for more on this matter. You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.There are many many examples of natural processes that result in the illusion of design. Virtually anything you look at in nature, from an organism to a solar system to a galaxy... has an illusion of design. These things are "designed" only in the sense that they have achieved levels of complexity through natural processes that are greater than their initial state. These resulting higher levels of complexity were not decided in advanceThe important distinction is that the term "design" implies an overarching plan with a purpose and a target goal. The design we see in living organisms clearly demonstrates that they were built bottom-up, not top-down. There was no master plan for "goldfish" that results in a goldfish... instead there is the geneticly coded instruction for a goldfish embryo, a coded instruction that has a long history of gradual change in small steps that only seem dramatic when viewed over the vast expanse of geological time.There is a tremendous difference between this illusion of design, and design in the sense of a plan with a predetermined goal/purpose.When you add the word "intelligent" before design, you are in a whole new arena, and there simply is no evidence of such in nature. Literally everything that you could point to as "evidence of intelligent design" has been shown to be a result of natural processes. Does that mean I am biased against "intelligent design" ? No. It simply means that there is no evidence of intelligent design.If you think that my comments imply that we shouldn't be looking for evidence of intelligent design... I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY scientist who studies living organisms and astrophysics is CONSTANTLY looking for evidence... ANY EVIDENCE... that will point them towards a deeper understanding of the processes they observe. If they came across evidence of intelligent design, they'd be as excited as they are now when they don't. The fact is, they don't.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Hi Bluejay A reasonable approach. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real science coming from their camp. This is an interesting way to look at it, and I see nothing wrong with the way you reach that conclusion. If that is, in fact, the way ID proponents see it, then here's how I would respond to them...(1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science;... I don't agree with that statement to begin with, but if I did, I would simply say "well then our laws of science are incomplete".(2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s).... As mentioned above, I don't see any contradictions to begin with, but even if I did, introducing a supernatural entity as an answer is the ultimate cop-out which has no explanatory value. What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it).I'd like to quickly return to the two examples you gave of logical reasons why IDists think life had to be designed by an intelligent designer:

"WordBeLogos argued that intelligence is required to make a code, because all known codes are the product of intelligence."

​

--- I'm afraid I don't see this as logical.

​

a) not all known codes are the product of intelligence - take the genetic code for example (circular, I know)

​

b) even if all known codes were the product of intelligence, that does not automatically mean that intelligence is required to make a code.

​

"AlphaOmegakid suggested that the first life must have come from pre-existing life because the Biogenetic Law has been proven by repeated observation of life giving birth to new life"

​

--- again, I don't really see this as logical.

​

Biogenesis is well-understood, and there is no doubt that life, as we know it today, is created only by other life. However, that does not automatically preclude the possibility that the very first life emerged from non-living matter/processes.

​

(note: I appreciate that you may not share the views expressed in the examples you presented)

​

Bluejay writes:

​

...they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.

​

A good point. I have had people say to me "Look around you man... all this stuff, these trees, these plants, these people - it is ALL evidence of God." NO, no no no no. Our existence alone is not evidence of God. Our existence (viewed against the backdrop of our understanding of the universe) is evidence that "something happened" which led to us. Why is it easier to imagine that "something" as an all powerful entity, rather than as some underlying property or process that we don't yet understand?

​

Thanks for your reply.

Thank you, and you as well. Don't misunderstand me. I am not implying that anyone has won this debate. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about clearly and succinctly expressing the reasons why we hold our opinions. This is precisely what many members have done in response to the propositions in your original post.What we need from you now are clear and succinct explanations for why you consider ID hypotheses to be as rooted in science as the abiogenesis hypotheses are.Allow me please to use wikipedia's entries as a starting point:Let's look at wikipedia's description of ID: Now let me contrast that with the description of the PAH world hypothesis (an abiogenesis hypothesis): So - let's expand on the PAH hypothesis: (Please read this - it is all-important)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found in the interstellar medium, comets and meteorites. PAHs, when exposed to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, have some hydrogen atoms stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group (a compound containing an oxygen atom bound covalently with a hydrogen atom). The modified PAHs become far more soluble in water and are amphiphilic (possessing both hydrophilic and hydrophobic (corrected - thanks RAZD) properties). As such, they tend to organise themselves into stacks when in a solution. In such a stack, the separation between rings is 0.34nm, the same as that found in RNA and DNA. Small molecules will naturally attach to PAH rings, but because of a swiveling action that occurs while the PAH rings form, some attaching compounds are dislodged, resulting in an preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. At this point you have an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid to form.WOW - there is huge explanatory power in that hypotheses. Here is a possible scenario in which non-living, naturally occurring molecules can lead to RNA and DNA, which as we all know are at the foundation of life on earth.Now here's ID's hypothesis: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".I'd like anyone (but specifically you) to expand on that in a way that provides anything close to an abiogenesis model, or explanation for the origin of life from non-life.Edited by Briterican, : Correction. Thanks RAZD.Edited by Briterican, : PAH, not PHA. Title.

Hi RAZDThanks for the correction, and the links.I hope that marc9000 also appreciates that I am not implying that PAH is specifically "how it happened"; it is simply a good example of the explanatory power of such a hypothesis as opposed to the non-explanatory nature of statements such as "best explained by an intelligent cause".

Hi again marc9000Let's get the irrellevant stuff out of the way:

" I think it’s time to move on from the beginnings of my opening post, the abiogenesis is a fact statement of talkorigins" - agreed, it is not relevant to the primary point in your OP: the notion that abiogenesis hypotheses are no more scientific than ID. (side note: I believe that abiogenesis, in some form, is a fact, but I'm happy to set that issue aside for the sake of argument)

​

"I think from now on if we just say abiogenesis it should be understood that it references only naturalism." - agreed.

​

marc9000 writes:

​

As this describes organization, separation, swiveling action, formation, etc. — are these not descriptions of changes over long periods of time? It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?

​

As RAZD capably pointed out in his post above, "evolution" in its strict definition deals with "the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation". In the sense of "gradual change over time" - sure, I have no problem with you applying that idea to the PAH stack formation process. HOWEVER, even if you do this, you can nonetheless see that what we started with were non-living molecules that can by no means be considered "living", that the process (potentially) leads to RNA/DNA - and life, and that the process would proceed without an intelligent agent controlling it. Abiogenesis and the ToE are discrete, separate entities, regardless of your opinion. You don't need the "big bang theory" to appreciate the theory of gravity, and likewise, you don't need abiogenesis to appreciate the theory of evolution (RAZD's comments about the mistaken notion that evolution means "simple to complex" is an important one as well, and I hope you have read his post thoroughly).

​

Which dovetails nicely into the studytoanswer link you provided, which has also been skillfully dealt with in the above posts. As RAZD points out, it is misleading, and Iblis continues by giving specific examples of errors in the article.

​

marc9000 writes:

​

My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the reducing atmosphere problem as described in this link?

​

Thoroughly dealt with in Iblis' post, but for the sake of completeness I will reproduce one of his comments here:

​

Iblis writes:

​

The reason is that hydrogen is ubiquitous, what we tend to think of as "empty space" is actually very diffuse hydrogen. Combine this with the sharp variances in temperature normal to such a near-vacuum, and you have a situation where any existing free oxygen tends to combine with hydrogen to become water vapor and then precipitate into ice. Water is a relatively stable molecule and retains its structure through various elemental states, becoming more complex as other items are dissolved in it.

​

I'm in agreement with the above posters that the link provided is simply wrong at best, and intentionally misleading on some points. There is also virtually nothing on the link provided which would give me any insight into the qualifications of the author(s) and/or any research papers or other sources to support their suppositions. I would make one other point: The main page's subtitle is "A Resource for a Reasoned, Respectful, and Ready Defence of the Christian Faith". What does the "Christian Faith" have to do with biology, and why do they feel the need to "defend" that faith from objective scientific research? I'll answer that for you: because their faith is contradicted by the evidence of objective scientific research.

​

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:

​

I expanded on the PAH World Hypothesis to give you an example of the explanatory power of a real hypothesis. My brief (1 paragraph) paraphrasing of source material provided (hopefully) most of the main points.

​

I then asked you if you could expand on ID to give us an example of its explanatory power in helping to understand the world around us, to which you replied:

​

marc9000 writes:

​

I'll need time - I do have a busy life.

​

As do the rest of us marc. But if you can find the time to say things like this (from your original post) ...

​

marc9000 writes:

​

It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.

​

... then you should be prepared to support those comments with some form of evidence. We are all also busy people.

​

marc9000 writes:

​

I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life. But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts.

​

Not good enough. You may say "you're asking a lot" - but you are the one that implied in your original post that ID's propositions are as scientific as abiogenesis hypotheses, so I'm simply asking you to support this proposition with an example.

​

The fact that you don't have an example off the top of your head is cause for concern, considering that despite this you seem convinced that ID is something that should be taught in schools. With that sort of conviction, I would expect you to be able to provide even a small example of ID helping to explain or understand abiogenesis (or anything for that matter). But you cannot. I challenge you - with no time limit - to give us ANY example of an ID hypothesis (or anything!) that is of any value in explaining or understanding anything.

​

marc9000 writes:

​

Some will accuse me of straying off topic - it's only intended to inspire thought on how quickly different people are to accept what they're told without question, depending on the source.

​

At the risk of sounding rude, you're right - off topic and not relevant. The next 3 paragraphs consist of nothing more than you chatting to us about what kind of guy you are and what you think. The one thing I gleaned from this is that you, like others, have this odd notion that people "worship" science. What's that about? I can assure you that I do not awake in the morning and annoint myself with Dawkins' oil, or pray to my copy of "Life: An Unauthorised Biography" by Richard Fortey.

​

I'm also not able to make any sense of some of your apparent objections to science.

​

Example:

marc9000 writes:

​

Just recently, about 40 years after that giant leap for mankind, we hear, Hey man, the moon just might have WATER on it!! What an amazing new discovery! And if I ask; when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see — I know what answer I’ll get — nope, no revisions today. Same amount of water there, too.

​

What? I'm trying desperately to understand the point you are trying to make here. If there is one, but I cannot find it. The fact that evidence is piling up of water on the moon IS an amazing discovery - one that has been predicted and expected by many - the fact that the evidence is becoming concrete is exciting. What's this got to do with abiogenesis or ID?

​

And more:

marc9000 writes:

​

And if I ask; when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see — I know what answer I’ll get — nope, no revisions today.

​

Eh? Would you expect to see revisions? Would you expect there to suddenly be a galaxy where there wasn't one before? Why? And if not, then what is the point of this comment? The Hubble is utilised to great benefit, and to imply that scientists utilising it are sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying "Nope, nothing new today" (if that was your intended implication, hard to tell) - is just ridiculous.

​

More meaningless nonsense:

marc9000 writes:

​

How capable are humans in figuring out everything they want to know? Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? (less than 40 years) There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.

​

If you wish to discuss specifics relating to abiogenesis (as per the OP title), please... by all means do so.

​

(PS - don't be offended by the snippy nature of my comments. As you've seen, others are far worse. I have only become "snippy" now because I feel that you haven't even tried to support the comments made in your original post. Despite this, I am grateful for your participation in the discussion and hope you will continue.)

​

Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Absolutely... I didn't mean to say you wouldn't, but marc said "do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see — I know what answer I’ll get — nope, no revisions today." - and I just can't make any sense of that. I want to know WHY he expects (or doesn't expect) to find new galaxies in Hubble images and how that has any bearing on his original post.I really wish marc would at least acknowledge that there are no ID based (or design based) hypotheses that can compare to the various candidates for (naturalistic) abiogenesis, at least not any that don't have "insert miracle here" at the core.Thanks RAZD.