Transition from chemistry to biology

I tend to adhere to the idea that abiogenesis is automatic. That is to say it happens automatically almost without exception, given the prerequisite conditions. I consider people that cannot accept the idea of abiogenesis cognitively dissonant.

traste, you are not attaching the proper meanings to the terms being used here. Stop equivocating. Spontaneous generation is not synonymous with abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Spontaneous Generation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is 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). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

​

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

​

1. Andr Brack (1998). "Introduction". in Andr Brack. The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780521564755. "Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory."

---

quote:

---

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

​

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]

​

On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

​

1. Wilde SA, Valley JW, Peck WH, Graham CM (January 2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 175—8. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637.

​

2. Schopf JW, Kudryavtsev AB, Agresti DG, Wdowiak TJ, Czaja AD (March 2002). "Laser--Raman imagery of Earth's earliest fossils". Nature 416 (6876): 73—6. doi:10.1038/416073a. PMID 11882894.

​

3. Hayes, John M.; Waldbauer, Jacob R. (2006). "The carbon cycle and associated redox processes through time". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 931—950. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1840.

​

4. Archer, Corey; Vance, Derek (2006). "Coupled Fe and S isotope evidence for Archean microbial Fe(III) and sulfate reduction". Geology 34 (3): 153—156. doi:10.1130/G22067.1.

​

5. Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Brasier, Martin; Embley, T. Martin (2006). "Introduction: how and when did microbes change the world?". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 845—50. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1847.

​

6. Summons, Roger E.; et al. (2006). "Steroids, triterpenoids and molecular oxygen". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 951—68. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1837.

---

Edited by CosmicChimp, : formatting

traste has proclaimed that because in 1864, Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life today does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life; an extrapolation of Pasteur's empirical results can be logically made, by him (traste) that states that no life anywhere nor under any circumstances can ever arise except via the mechanism of procreation.traste's astute remark is not unlike Pasteur's summary of his own empirical results, using the Latin phrase, "Omne vivum ex ovo," Latin for "all life [is] from eggs."traste I laud you upon this most profound and useful piece of wisdom it will surely earn you a place in the annals of history. traste, if only it were possible to see you standing there beside our most revered teacher Louis Pasteur, Saviour of silk & wine & humanity.

You seem to be confused about the meaning of hypothesis; as you imply it means something that it does not. There's a good discussion of that on another thread actually: Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I put up a response on another thread. That topic here on this thread, is off topic.