Transition from chemistry to biology

Many scientists believed that life could spontaneously generate from dead organic matter. Hence the theory of abiogenesis that life can come from non-living matter. Redi hypothesised otherwise. He reasoned that all life came from pre existing living matter. That was the theory of Biogenesis.

Stop equivocating.

In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms.

Modern abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms. It is about the emergence of life, itself.

And who were these "many scientists"? Were they anything at all like scientists today?

I'm on to you now...

You seem to be really dishonest.

But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals. Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life.

In a previous message you wrote:

It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.

And I've seen you argue a similiar line of reasoning in a previous thread.

You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life. Then you use the Law of Biogenesis, which refuted Spontaneous Generation, to claim that Modern Abiogenesis has been refuted.

But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same. And there isn't necessarily some "point" at which non-life becomes life.

If you think there is, then tell me in the following pic:

Where does yellow end and green begin?

How about where red ends and violet begins?

Its the same for identifying this "point" where non-life becomes life that your whole argument relies on.

I'll combine the response for the last two posts.

From Message 108

In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms. wiki writes: In Biology, an organism is a living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). Is there any other kind of organism?

Yes and no.

Bacteriophage and ribozymes come to mind. These don't technically classify as "organisms" because as wiki puts it:

quote:

---

Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are incapable of "independent" reproduction or metabolism. This controversy is problematic, though, since some parasites and endosymbionts are also incapable of independent life.

---

Take a look at endosymbionts to see how this classification is problematic.

So to answer your question, no there are no other kind of organisms, but that is due to the flawed definition of what an organism is. So yeah, there are other "things" that could be considered as "life" in the the pathway from non-living to living that don't fit the definition of "organisms".

If it isn't fully functioning, then it isn't alive.

So endosymbionts are not alive?

You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases.

And what is life itself? It is a fully funtioning living organism that can metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. Anything less, and you don't have life.

Clearly this is not true. Endosymbionts are not fully functioning because they are not capable of independent reproduction yet they are alive.

From Message 109

I'm on to you now... You seem to be really dishonest. Then point out what I am saying that is dishonest, and quit making these false accusations.

That's what I did right after that line right here:

But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals. Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life. In a previous message you wrote: It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.

You're creating a false dichotomy and then claiming that the arguments that expose it are strawmen.

Yes these are my exact words and reasoning, and there is nothing dishonest here.

You claim that at one moment they're chemicals and the next moment they're life and that something is either life or non-life with nothing in between but also claim that its a strawman to say that your argument is that there's some point where life emerged.

You're also dishonest because instead of trying to understand what current models of abiogenesis actually do say, you're trying to pigeon hole them into something less so that you can claim that they're not possible. This way, you don't have to give up your preferred worldview that has life as some magical thing that you either are or aren't that cannot arrise on its own so therefore god must have done it (I presume*)

You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life. No I don't think this, I know this. This is the definition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with origin of life.

But the current models on abiogenesis do not rely on some "point" where life becomes non-life. Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario.

The ribozymes that I linked to above fall into this grey area. Autocatalysis is one of the steps that needs to be taken on the path (as opposed to a point) from non-life to life.

The LoB was recognized to be a universal truth of nature over many years. It is a descriptive law of how nature works today and in the past, and in the future. All life comes from pre-existing life. The beauty of this is that germ theory relies on the LoB. Evolution relies on the LoB. Every biological process relies on the LoB.

Funny that Biology classes don't mention the LoB then.....

Its because those theories don't "rely" on the LoB in the way your making it out to seem. Evolution relies on fully functioning organisms not spontaneously generating in a population, but it does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.

Stop equivocating please.

But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same. If I am wrong then please demonstrate how any single chemical reaction and self organizational event thoughout this supposed emergence process is not spontaneously generated.

More equivocation :rolleyes:

Sontaneous Generation is a specific theory on how fully functioning organisms arrise (like maggots comming from rotting meat).

To generate something spontaneously just means that it happens on its own, which is important to Modern Abiogenesis (as shown above with autocatalysis). But this is different from Spontaneous Generation the theory.

There were many forms of spontaneous generation in the past. There are many forms of spontaneous generation in the future. What is the difference? There is none. At the foundation, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis was that life could come from non-living matter. Modern abiogenesis is life can come from non-living matter. There is no distinguishable difference except modern abiogenesis invokes the magic of untestability.

Wrong.

Spontaneous Gerenation deals with the emergence of fully function living organisms while Abiogenesis does not. Abiogenesis deals with the emergence of "life" along a pathway where there is no "point" where it becomes fully functioning.

Where does yellow end and green begin? At 570 nm wavelength.

569 nm wavelength is not definately green.

How about where red ends and violet begins? They are not contiguous. Red is 625-740 nm wavelength. Violet is 380-450nm wavelenth.

In the same way, Modern Abiogenesis proposes that life and non-life are not contiguous and that there is a grey area between them where some things are "sorta" alive. I have given examples of these things above.

Now, whether or not Modern Abiogenesis is accurate, you are falsely claiming that Modern Abiogenesis relies on a dichotomy between life and non-life. That is your biggest misunderstanding.

But the reason I really think your dishonest is because I don't think that you don't understand this. I think that you want Modern Abiogenesis to rely on this so you can use the LoB to argue against it. You keep trying to show that Modern Abiogenesis does rely on the dichotomy.

The LoB suggests that there may indeed be a non-material entity that divides life from non-life.

And this exposes the motive for you dishonesty.

Your woldview relies on life being this magical thing that is seperate from chemistry. If Modern Abiogenesis becomes accurate and it is shown that there is nothing magical about life, that there is no non-material entity that divides life from non-life, then the philosophy that you have built on this shaky foundation will come crumbling down.

*presumption fullfilled.

You do not debate with honor and you do not concede to move the topic further when it is warrented, you simply argue just to argue. I am not going to waste time on debates like that.

I concur but I'm simply arguing to waste time :laugh:

You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases. Then you can't have Biology and organic chemistry. There are good definitions of life. Each Biology book has them.

This is false.

I know someone who is taking Biology 111 at an accredited university right now.

In the beginnning of Chapter 2 section 1: What is Life? it says right up front: "There is no good definition of life".

Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario. No actually, they do realize this boundary and it is demonstrated in their "metabolism first" and "replication first" models.

That their models propose one before the other shows that there is a grey area. Things that replicate only and/or things that metabolize only are the things that are "semi" alive.

evolution... does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials. You'll have to tanslate this one for me.

Evolution doesn't rely on Spontaneous Generation in the sense that you're using it to say that Abiogenesis couldn't have happened.

The rest of your replies boil down to: "Nuh-uh!" or are unsupported assertions.

Pasteur's hypothesis was that all life arises from other life. As far as I know, this hypothesis has not been successfully challenged.

If all life arises from other life then life has to have existed forever. We know that in the distant past, it was impossible for life to exist in the universe. Therefore, life could not have existed forever. Ergo, not all life arises from other life.

Even if God himself created the first life, he would have created it from non-life. It still would have been a transition from chemistry to biology.

All life on earth arises from other life.

If all life on Earth arises from other life then life has to have existed forever on Earth. We know that in the distant past, it was impossible for life to exist in the universe on Earth. Therefore, life could not have existed forever on Earth. Ergo, not all life on Earth arises from other life.

Even if God himself created the first life on Earth, he would have created it from non-life. It still would have been a transition from chemistry to biology on Earth.

ABE:

If you want to retreat to panspermia, then you've gone outside the scope of Pasteur and are instead talking about something else.

I don't know what Pasteur's belief's were on a creator but I don't think that's what he was addressing.

What he was addressing was the now outdated idea called Spontaneous Generation, "an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from Univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s)".

quote:

---

Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : See ABE

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

I see your point but I also think there is a connection and have a sneaking feeling that you're trying to avoid it so I'll phrase the question to you.

Well, you're wrong that I'm trying to avoid something. What even makes you say that? Because I don't agree with you?

I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?

Not enough information....

All life that is currently alive on Earth began from other life, yes.

But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life.

I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree? Given the finite history of our universe it is impossible for all life to have come from other life, and this includes the Earth. So I would have to disagree.

If panspermia is correct then all the life [i]on earth[i/] began from existing life. It just pushes the transition from chemistry to biology off of the planet but the point stands. Although, I'm not seeing a reason for making htat point in this thread.

Its better to use the little green reply button at the bottom right of someones post rather than the general reply because people will know who you're replying to and the discussion will be easier to follow. Plus, the board lets me know when I have replies waiting if you actually reply to me rather than generally.

But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life. This has probably been discussed other places and I may get my fingers slapped for going off topic but I'm new to the forum and just rummaging around these issues so .... What is the evidence you relied on for this belief?

The science behind the current theories of abiogenesis. You can start reading up on them here.

All scientific theories are provisional but when there is a theory that has stood for 150 years, it does not seem logical to say that it may be wrong and so I'll support a different theory instead.

People don't support a new theory just because they think the old one is wrong. They support it because that's what the evidence suggests. Besides that the length of time a theory has stood doesn't really have anything to do with its veracity. How long did people think that spirits caused disease before the Germ Theory of Disease came out? Germ Theory too was very controversial when it came out.

Spontaneous is not meant to mean "instantaneously", its meant to mean "that it happens all on its own".