Transition from chemistry to biology

quote:

---

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

---

exactly Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

So then, pray tell, how did the first life on this planet occur if it had to come from pre-existing life which did not exist?

I have concluded that since there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, since this idea contradicts cell theory and Law of Biogenesis (already a post), and that there is not even a scientific model concerning abiogenesis, it is logical to dismiss it as a hypothetical. Here is how I came to this conclusion.I don’t think anyone would argue that there is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or even proof for that matter. I have not seen a single experiment that provides any scientific evidence for abiogenesis, yet I have heard about many organizations/individuals doing research searching for evidence concerning abiogenesis. It is interesting to me that there is all this money, excitement, and labor going into research. Doesn’t science work in the exact opposite? Are we not supposed to make the observations and then make conclusions. What observations are there in abiogenesis- there was no life, then there was? Seems to me this type of observation leaves a lot of room for other interpretations. Through discussion, I have come to the fact that those that believe in abiogenesis bring bias to the table, as we all do. Abiogenesis assumes this miraculous process happened without any intelligent intervention. Because of this, they refuse to let go of such an idea that has no evidence, nor logic to it.
I admit, I also bring bias to the table. I was brought up that everything was created by God. But then, once I got into college (secular university) I began to question the evidence for a creator. This search for evidence has brought me to what I believe a very open-mined, unbiased (albeit not completely) search for truth. Due to the complexity of life, the fact that there is no logical explanation for life arising spontaneously from non-matter, and a multitude of other observations, I have no choice but to conclude that we were not an accident. I know the argument that “Religion is opium for the masses”, but the way I look at it, if there is a creator, I want to know this being. If there is no creator, I have simply used my life to promote logical discussion and strived to make this world a better place through kindness, compassion and generosity. That doesn’t sound so bad. I would consider my life a success whether there is a creator or not. What I am trying to say is that I have the best of both worlds and if I am wrong (which I am not), no harm done-I would still live my life in the same manner whether there is a creator or not.I have heard so many times that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different ideas. Well, this may be true by definition (the textbooks sure lump them together), but they are definitely tied together.
Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. This is why scientists are so frantically trying to come up with any sort of evidence that even remotely appears to address abiogenesis. They realize evolution has no meaning or reason without an explanation as to how life originated on this planet. If there is no scientific explanation to the origin of life, then the possibility and probability of intelligent design is very prevalent. And if there is a possibility of a creator, evolution can be logically thrown out, it would no longer be needed. This is why people are so desperate to search for a way to scientifically rule out a creator. The blatant disregard for evidence and proof simply astounds me.Alpha and Omega kid, my hat is off to you. You are a fierce, poignant, intelligent thinker. Through your debate, you have single-handedly refuted the idea of abiogenesis. Life could not simply occur through random reactions (unless of course you want to argue they are not random and that there is a driving, intelligent force behind them), this goes against the evidence, the facts and logic. Keep up the good work. I am confident I can move on now to bigger and better things having thrown abiogenesis out.

quote:

---

I have concluded that since there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, since this idea contradicts cell theory and Law of Biogenesis (already a post), and that there is not even a scientific model concerning abiogenesis, it is logical to dismiss it as a hypothetical

---

As has already been pointed out there is no good reason to think that the alleged "law of biogenesis" is a real scientific law. Nor is there any alternative to natural abiogenesis that is even equally good by your own criteria. Thus the only consistent conclusion you could adopt is one of complete agnosticism on the origin of life.

quote:

---

Doesn’t science work in the exact opposite? Are we not supposed to make the observations and then make conclusions.

---

What are the research experiments but ways of making observations ?

quote:

---

What observations are there in abiogenesis- there was no life, then there was? Seems to me this type of observation leaves a lot of room for other interpretations

---

There are all the experiments carried out by the researchers. And really what possiiblity other than life coming from non-life is consistent with the observation "there was no life, then there was ?" There may be many possibilities on HOW life came from non-life but ALL of them would be abiogenesis (by definition).

quote:

---

I was brought up that everything was created by God. But then, once I got into college (secular university) I began to question the evidence for a creator. This search for evidence has brought me to what I believe a very open-mined, unbiased (albeit not completely) search for truth.

---

Since you're citing bogus "evidence" (the "law of biogenesis"), not consistently applying your own criteria and apparently badly misconstruing the arguments offered, I have to say that bias seems to dominate your conclusion.

quote:

---

I have heard so many times that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different ideas. Well, this may be true by definition (the textbooks sure lump them together), but they are definitely tied together.

---

The origin of life has some implications for the way life developed, but that is pretty much about it.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. This is why scientists are so frantically trying to come up with any sort of evidence that even remotely appears to address abiogenesis. T

---

Definitely false. Firstly anti-evolutionists frequently appeal to additional abiogenesis events (creation) that are definitely at odds with Pasteur's actual observations (i..e they require complex multi-cellular life forms to come into existence). Abiogenesis is a cornerstone of THEIR beliefs. Abiogenesis is a very big and very interesting problem which is the real reason for interest in it. Even if abiogenesis were proven impossible the evidence for evolution would mean that evolution remained, untouched.Your bias is showing again.

Hi eial, The evidence IS life. There is a point where there is NO life, then a point where there IS life, something happened, right? The observation IS life. We observe life, we also observe a point were there is NO life, that area of study is called abiogenesis, wheres the problem? Just the opposite, scientist do not assume it to be a miraculous process, that is a religious PoV, science assumes natural process which is what every phenomenon follows. Lets follow your logic. Life is complex, I cannot see life arising naturally, Im satisfied believing that there is an even MORE complex being, which I cannot see, that created the complex life which I cannot believe occured naturally. Do you see the fallacy in that logic?Your original belief is that life is too complex to arise naturally, yet you have no problem believing that an even more complex being exists, and requires no explanation for it's origin and appeared naturally, this is hypocritical don't you think? Do you honestly believe that every bio-evolutionary scientist in the world is conspiring to de-bunk a creator? Really? For you to be right it would require almost a joint effort from the entire scientific community to be deceptive, and claims them all to be liars. Really??? You really believe that? Your right, he refuted the idea, but that does not make him right... I love this logic, 'Life cannot occur naturally, BUT if there existed a super-natural, invisable, intelligence that always was and always is, even though that is MUCH MORE comlex than the original problem, You're totally cool with it', WOW talk about a bias opinion. Ok, eial, we are glad you are satisfied with nonsense.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

"I would like to start a thread concerning the issue raised by computer users concerning the structure of microchip fabrication. I am certain that we are all aware that all electrical structures are composed of chemical elements that follow rules of physics that we can give a fair bit of evidence to back up. My question is this. Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to computers and televisions without the need for suoernatural intervention?"

What example of an electrical circuit can you give that has chemical elements? None of the components for either of those things have materials in them that reproduce, thats like say that 2 computers left alone with some Barry White music playing should be capable of making a baby computer. Your question is nonsensical, and/or I have misunderstood it and you should give a better example for what you are trying to ask.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I dont think so.No experiment confirmation.

What does defining the difference between two terms have to do with experimental confirmation?

Biogenesis is not a real scientific law because its againts abiogenesis thats it?I think Im on the thread now.

Oh are you defining or imposing?

The post you were responding to was defining. The conversation went:

quote:

---

A good definition of abiogenesis should be given: one that clearly distinguishes it from spontaneous generation.

---

Message 14To which Loudmouth replied

quote:

---

Spontaneous generation: Common species found on the earth today can be produced from inanimate chemicals, such as muddy puddles (frogs), meat left out in the sunlight (maggots and flies), or milk left in a jug for a long period of time (lactobacillus). No new species can be created from spontaneous generation, but instead the theory describes where they come from.

​

Abiogenesis: A self propagating chemical reaction starts that results in self replicating polymers. This gives rise to more complex chemical reactions due to accretion of small mistakes in the self replication reactions. Eventually, this results in cellular life due to capture in lipid bodies, followed by diversification into the species we see today.

---

Nobody is imposing anything, just defining what two different things mean, in a rough around the edges kind of fashion.

Wrong. The "law of biogenesis" is not a scientific law because there are no good reasons to think that it is absolute.

What is absolute and correct abiogenesis that disprove long ago by Pasteur?Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE.Do year any experiment producing life from non life?If youy hear your alone.

Pasteur's experiment was aimed at the idea that the (modern) microrganisms associated with decay were the product of that decay rather than the cause. It is utterly absurd to suggest that his experiments ruled out the possibility of life forming be natural processes.

quote:

---

Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?

---

The statement is too unclear for me to agree with it or disagree with it.

quote:

---

I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE

---

I think that jumping to conclusions far in excess of the evidence - as you do in your assessment of Pasteur's experiments - is not a characteristic of good science at all.