Great topic. Can anyone give me any evidence that living organisms can arise from inorganic material, such as claimed in the origin of life? And don't tell me that this happens all the time, you know what I mean.
Onifre, This is not directed toward you, I am just simply flabbergasted and here is why. I have done some research on the topic of abiogenesis, and it seems to me there is virtually no evidence that this is even possible. Sure, I learned we have discovered some RNA that can self replicate-well sort of. When you say it that way it sounds like you simply throw in some RNA, a little nitrogen, some carbon, oxygen and a few other miscellaneous chemicals and bingo, you have a replicated RNA molecule. Well, this is not the case. The articles I have read indicate that the RNA molecules can replicate in the absence of protein catalysts and the RNA acts as its own catalyst. Well, how is this good news for the idea of abiogenesis? I would argue that RNA is a much more complex molecule and all the evidence indicates it does not just simply form on its own-and why would it? Many amino acids are much less complex than RNA and any decent chemist can make amino acids in a controlled environment. You still need a controlled environment (such as the cytoplasm), excess amino acids that just happen to be floating around, tRNA, and a reason to replicate (such as a genetic code). Why would we even think this could be possible? It goes against many of the scientific process we know, including the Law of Biogenesis and cell theory.
You can't seriously be asking why we believe that organic chemicals can interact with each other to form complex structures? What other alternative to a natural chemical reaction would there be? The only possibility is that there is a natural processs and scientist continue to study the evidence, conduct experiments, and draw conclusions based off of observations. I don't see what you have issue with?
What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis. It is not just a cute little idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is a law. It cannot be used at ones convenience. It is irrefutable. It is proven. Every single experiment that has been done and continues to be done will confirm it because it is a LAW. Interesting that this is not talked about much. So, unless you throw this law out, abiogenesis is not even worth mentioning. My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for wellâ€¦forever! Or, just donâ€™t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today. My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design. If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force.
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 donâ€™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. Doesnâ€™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 â€œReligion is opium for the massesâ€, 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 doesnâ€™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.