Abiogenesis

Good! Wouldn't want you to suffocate. Take a breath. What ever it is that science doesn't know isn't worth bothering about. But, hey, I want to entertain every crazy idea, because all the un-crazy ideas have been perfumed poodles when it comes down to explaining abiogenesis.”HM

Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, by the way - the Panspermia concept strikes me as frivolous when one takes into account the vast amount of chemistry that will have already existed on the planet from its earliest days. I'd have to agree with you on this.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Abiogenesis will be as easy to explain as the Milky Way, once we understand its principles gain the right perspective.Once upon a time the Milky Way was not easy so to explain. It was a deep mystery until the end of the nineteenth century. Then technology”a better telescope”solved the mystery. Galaxies were revealed and eventually understood. And the Milky Way galaxy, once a starry conundrum, became our home.And once upon a time there was this very wise old philosopher who said that explaining the Milky Way would be simple...when its principles are discovered and understood. I forgot his name, but he was right.That's the best answer you're going to get from me, jar, and I will take a wild guess that it is not good enough for you (keemosabi). Perhaps you should tell me why understanding abiogenesis will not be simple, once we apprehend those elusive principles. What do you know about abiogenesis that refutes what I say? You seem to think it happened on Earth. Why? What principles can state that confirm your opinion?”HM

You are right it is not good enough because it does not answer the question but simply tosses out another irrelevant truism.You said: Why should it be simple to explain?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

kuresu wrote: Perehaps you could list 1, 2, 3... just what it is that abiogenesis claims. Far as I know, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are equally speculative. Far as I know, abiogenesis could have happened before the Big Bang, maybe in another mother universe. Maybe it never happened at all. Maybe life was a constant fixture just fluttering around in the pre-Bang era like hopeful mosquitoes, waiting for warm ponds to show so they could breed. Without knowing any abiogenic principles, how can separate the good questions from the bad?”HM

Why do there have to be special "abiogenic principles"? What's wrong with the principles of chemistry?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The study of Abiogenesis doesn't limit itself to the terrestrial. However the subject of abiogenesis does have a bias towards explaining the origin of terrestrial life (whether that origin is extraterrestrial or not). There is no evidence that life that is here originated with some pre-Bang life. Maybe it did - but first we must explain its appearance on earth, how that came about...depending on the answer, depends on whether we continue exploring back to the depth of time and beyond.

why does this sound like the invisible pink unicorn?as to what abiogenesis claims = life can start from non-life (but not in the manner of spontaneous generation--what Pastuer proved false).that is the simple statement of what abiogenesis is about.and panspermia requires abiogenesis. perhaps you should tell/ask cavediver this in one of the big bang threads. here's a hint though--they aren't equally speculative.

Ringo writes: Nothing, except they don't seem to be enough to make life from scratch like a pizza pie, which is what one might expect from the "principles of chemistry." But those are only the known principles of chemistry, of course. Wouldn't you suppose there are a few more principles to be discovered that might help to explain abiogenesis? And why would you suppose those new principles have to be chemical? Oh, but I forgot, you are the one who thinks genes are just collections of chemicals.”HM

What does "they don't seem to be enough" mean? How don't they "seem" to be enough? Your objection sounds exactly like the creationist objection to macroevolution. Show us an obstacle or stop asserting that there "must be" one. Why? What specifically is lacking in the known principles of chemistry?We know that all living things are made up of the same chemical elements as non-living things. We have a pretty good understanding of how those elements bond to form molecules. We have some understanding - if not complete yet - of the reactions that produce those bonds. All that really seems to be missing is a plausible pathway (or pathways) from goo to you. And you are the one who has admitted - more than once - that you have no evidence to the contrary.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What the heck else could genes be? Some variant on The Force? Eleventh-dimensional pixies? They're chains of nucleotides, Hoot. Chemicals!

This may not be a reasonable expectation, Hooter. With all our advanced knowledge of medicine we have yet to conquer cancer and the common cold, yet we have a pretty good idea of the directions in which we should be looking for the answers. The same with abiogenesis. We haven’t the complete knowledge, yet, but everything we do have reasonably points to a chemical process and appears to point here to this planet as the source of our terrestrial life.No, this does not mean that ALL life in the universe began here or only exists here. An abiogenic event on this planet does not preclude something similar happening elsewhere in the galaxy. And the chemistry of some other event may be totally different from what may have happened here (different genetic code set, structure, different aminos or nucleotides if these are even used at all, etc.)You are, of course, correct in that at present we do not know enough about the how and where of abiogenesis to make any definitive statements, but the data points we do have seem to point to a purely chemical event of terrestrial origin. Until we see something that indicates otherwise, and points overwhelmingly away from this supposition, then this is where the evidence leads and we have not choice but to follow.Panspermia is a reasonably plausible explanation for life on this planet, though it does force the question of how that seed developed to some other time and place. The evidence, however, incomplete as it presently is, does not lend this the greatest support. Our speculations must not just be reasonably plausible but also based on the directions the preponderance of the known evidence points. At his time that direction appears to be purely chemical and terrestrial. So what else would they be?If you're thinking "digital code set" I have no objection. If you're thinking "essence of universal life force," well now we have a problem.

To wit: Richard Dawkins (in River Out of Eden, 1995, p. 19) explains:

quote:

---

Genes are pure information”information that can be encoded, recorded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything moden computers can do.

---

Some chemicals! Come on, you chemists, give me the chemical principles for that.”HM

Ringo writes: Gee, that's all? Well, then, we're almost there. Whoopee!”HM

Maybe you should try a high-school biology text. Or ask Dr Dawkins if he thinks there's something in DNA othere than purines, pyrimidines, deoxyribose, and phosphate.