Transition from chemistry to biology

I would like to start a thread concerning the issue raised by creationists concerning the structure of abiogenesis. I am certain that we are all aware that all biological 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 living organisms without the need for suoernatural intervention?

I don't want to sound like an idiot, but what is Abiogenesis?

the development of living organisms from non-living matter.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non living matter.

damn beat me to the definition. Congrats Asgara

bows in the general direction of Alberta

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Bows deeply in the direction of Wisconsin hears loud crack and falls to floor writhing in agony.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-05-2004]

Here's my translation:
A - without (just like Athiest is without theism)
bio life
genesis beginning/start/creationIt is a beginning without life (from non life to life)

---

Common sense isn't

Thanks guys. Now I don't feel so, left-out-of-the-ring. lol.

Wait a tick. The definition you guys are giving for abiogenesis also fits spontaneous generation, and didn't "you guys" give some "Creationist" a verbal pummeling a week or so ago for confusing the two?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-09-2004]

I seem to recall that "spontaneous generation" was the term used for the position that organisms regularly arose from non-living matter - maggots arising from rotting meat, etc. The pummelling was for the person claiming that Pasteur's disproving of spontaneous generation applied to abiogenesis, too.And wasn't it you that was so adamant that scientific terms be taken in the context in which they were coined?

No, spontaneous generation is when fully formed organisms, usually already well-known species, are produced directly from rotting matter or from non-living matter - maggots from rotting meat, mice from decaying straw, and so forth.

quote:

---

Wait a tick. The definition you guys are giving for abiogenesis also fits spontaneous generation, and didn't "you guys" give some "Creationist" a verbal pummeling a week or so ago for confusing the two?

---

If Pasteur had created pre-biotic earth conditions and let it go for 1 billion years, they might be able to compare the two. However, he did nothing close to that. Instead he found the source of food spoilage, which was good in its own right.

quote:

---

No, spontaneous generation is when fully formed organisms, usually already well-known species, are produced directly from rotting matter or from non-living matter - maggots from rotting meat, mice from decaying straw, and so forth.

---

Spontaneous generation applied to single-celled organisms too, such as bacteria. In fact, that's what Pasteur helped refute...remember? And you include "from non-living matter" in your explanation (which is correct).So according to spontaneous generation, it was thought that the simplest living matter known could arise from non-living matter. That description of spontaneous generation fits the broad definition offered for abiogensis given in this thread Abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non living matter., It is a beginning without life (from non life to life); the development of living organisms from non-living matter.A good definition of abiogenesis should be given: one that clearly distinguishes it from spontaneous generation.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-09-2004]

Bacteria are well developed organisms. They are not necessarily the simplest life possible.