Abiogenesis

Until we can fill in some of the hows involved, it is no different.We do need to keep looking at the universe we live in, but looking at all of it. I imagine that there are still quite a few "That's weird?" moments left in science. What I object to are folk pointing to Panspermia as an answer. It's not. In fact, it is simply a bigger pile of questions than anything we currently have.If I were a betting man, and way to many loses have convinced me that usually that's not a good idea but this one seems sure enough to hazard a wager, I would bet that eventually we will find out that the transition from non-life to life is a pretty common chemical occurrence and we will have to revise our whole definition of "Living Thing".But that is just a WAG.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I might agree with Jar on this one. "Goddidit" is an answer of ignorance and brings inquiry to a halt, and so does Panspermia if proposed for the same reasons. In reality there is much we can study about the panspermia possibility, but when it is proposed out of ignorance then it becomes very similar to a standard Creationist argument, "We can't figure out how it happened, so [insert your favorite alternative here: Goddidit, panspermia, etc.]"--Percy

...so? Why can't you figure out what happened? It was only abiogenesis, after all”fundamental to the extreme. It ought to be simple enough to explain. Life just pops up anywhere warm ponds can be found, doesn't it? One scientific luminary, Stuart Kauffman (1995, At Home in the Universe, p. 45) thinks it does. He believes abiogenesis was a natural freebie:

quote:

---

[T]here are compelling reasons to believe that whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth. If this argument is correct, metabolic networks need not build one component at a time; they can spring full-grown from a primordial soup. Order for free, I call it. If I am right, the motto of life is not We the improbable, but We the expected.

---

Is he serious? Yikes! That's a joy ride to nowhere but belief. I wonder just how many here on this thread would sign off on Kauffman's "motto of life." Probably a few, including Percy and Ringo, who know life is just a collection of chemicals. Not a whole lot more to it, pilgrim....and you guys are pickin' on rob? For shame!”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Why should it be simple to explain?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This exemplifies the differences in ways of thinking that you and I have.You don't like a particular possible conclusion so you decide it is incredible.I don't know if the conclusion is correct or not. My reaction, and the only thinking one is:
What "compelling reasons" is he talking about? I don't know if the reasons will be compelling to me or not but until I look at them I stay right where I am now. His suggestion is one of two possible positions. I'd like to know how well he can support it.You sure are attaching a lot to the abiogenesis question. Maybe it is a good strategy since we all figure it is a tough one to nail down. However, it is just another god of the gaps game. If the gap closes where will you hide your smaller and smaller god next time?Edited by NosyNed, : lost letter again.

Shouldn't the egg be simpler to explain than the chicken?”HM

why?

Yet another of your content free posts designed to avoid addressing questions.So once again I ask:Why should abiogenesis be simple?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Perhaps, if they're both in the coop to look at. But this egg hatched quite a while ago in a coop very unlike the ones we have today.

Nosy wrote: My "god in the gap" is the god of principles, and I don't think we know all the principles yet. Maybe the unknown principles will be even more powerful than those of molecular biology.”HM

...or mabe in a coop far, far away.”HM

Why did you bring molecular biology up? We are talking about prebiotic chemisry in this thread. We can't have biology until we have life.You are looking for something you call "unknown principles"? What the hay are they?What you seem to be doing now is suggesting that you god will be resplendently proved by science when we know more. Bad strategy. So far every time we learn more another gap closes. God is no longer the explanation for lightening, volcanoes, disease (though in another thread there is a hint that there are preaching fools out there who ascribe mental disease to demons), stars and planets or the nature of living things on this planet.Now you want this god to be the explanation for the origin of life from chemicals? Why?In addition, you've now backed off any real disagreement with any research into abiogenesis and are waving your hands in the air saying "Just you wait! Any day now! Something will be discoverd that will prove me right. " We'll await your "unknown prinicples" without holding our breath.Sounds like an echo of the creationist arguments against evolution. For a century it's been any day now. That's about the only thing with a worse track record than economical fusion plants.

When its principles are understood it will be simple. Until then, we're all just hathching brainstones. I smell a pre-Copernican perfume in the coop, when it comes to explaining abiogenesis. Panspermia, as a seeding mechanism, is not as far fetched as its detractors claim it is. Meanwhile, they need to believe that the God of Biology chose Earth to conduct His blessed lab experiments. How utterly conceited are we?Question: Do you believe the principles of abiogenesis will become well-enoughy understood to reproduce the process (or whatever) from chermical scratch in a labroatory?”HM

Hoot Mon said: When I asked why it should be simple he posted a bunch of nonsense messages and finally he posts: That is still a non-answer. After the fact, once we understand things the answer is often simple. But that has NOTHING to do with your assertion.You said: So once again:Why should it be simple to explain? Yet another bullshit content free message.No one has made such claims.And let's deal with the first question before we let you move the goal posts yet again.You said: So once again:Why should it be simple to explain?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

False. You still have to explain how abiogenesis got started with panspermia. In the meantime, even if it did happen elsewhere, that does not mean it cannot have happened here (which is what your statement seems to imply).Also, panspermia only means that life started elsewhere and came to earth. Abiogenesis does not claim that life only started on earth. So your final complaint is a non-starter.