Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis "Evidence" Debunked, Abiogenesis Experiments Debunked, Abiogenesis Debunked, Abiogenesis Explained, Atheist Creation Myth Deb

[tabycat]

God is alive, He created all livings things, therefro life from Life. :knight1::nun1:

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al

**No, science cannot explain everything, but in this case confidence in science being able to deliver an explanation is well-founded. **

It is just as well founded to all Catholics that all of Creation is a miracle, and therefore everything in it is a miracle, including abiogenesis and evolution.

Aah, that I can agree with. And as I pointed out in my first post on the thread, natural causes are not ‘godless’ causes – they are created by God, just like nature as a whole.

The universe and everything in it did not just accidentally pop into existence. Anyone who says it dis is not going to find a “well-founded explanation.”

That I can agree with too.

 

[CollegeStinks]

It really is just about meaningless to know that Stanley Miller’s experiment succeeded, and that hundreds of others have successfully copied him. As other’s have pointed out, that’s still leaps and bounds away from life, and can’t be construed as any sort of “evidence” for any side of the argument.

What’s more, the surface origin hypothesis of life proposed by Darwin is undoubtedly more hotly debated now than it was two decades ago. The main reason being that we are now seeing the conditions of primordial earth to not align so nicely with those required by the primordial soup.

The subsurface origin hypothesis is picking up much steam, and is much more easily explained as conditions were much stabler on ocean floors.

That said, I would like for somebody to tell me: How do you think God would create life? Don’t you think it would make good sense for him to employ natural means? It quite honestly does not make any sense at all for God to create life by anything other than natural means, since life itself is natural. No matter how God created life, remnants of his blueprints will certainly be discoverable, even if his hands are invisible.

Edit: And I’d like to throw in that RNA world is not accepted by everyone in the field as being scientific fact. It may make sense and it may put things in a nice little order for us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it happened. Show me evidence for it. Pointing out that RNA has catalytic, binding, and regulatory abilities does not count as evidence. In no way does that necessitate that the RNA world hypothesis is correct.

 

[Truth777]

Your source is misinforming you. Life originated through chemistry, and chemistry is not a matter of “random chance and coincidence”. Mix together two parts of hydrogen gas, one part of oxygen gases and apply a spark. If chemistry was “random chance and coincidence” then there would be equal amounts of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O, H[sub]4[/sub]O etc. In reality, what you get is overwhelmingly H[sub]2[/sub]O. Chemistry, and hence abiogenesis, is not a random process.

Your source is misinforming you. You can only claim these things as facts when a scientist comes forth with the evidence proving abiogenesis or at least providing some substantial evidence for it. My statement talking about “random chance and coincidence” refers to the concept of nothing from something (another impossibility that has not been observed ever).

Oh and don’t even think of bringing quantum mechanics into this as the vacuum isn’t nothing.

Again, your source is feeding you false information. We do not have “no evidence”, but we have some evidence. Not as much as we would like, but some. Did your source tell you about lipid bilayers? Did it tell you that lipid bilayers form spontaneously? Did it tell you that bacterial cell membranes are made of lipid bilayers? Did your source tell you about experiments showing the formation of purines and pyrimidines through prebiotic processes? Do you know that the bases that make up DNA and RNA are composed of two purines and two pyrimidines? Perhaps your sources are not giving you complete information.

And what about your sources which base themselves off of speculation which is unfounded and blind? None of the examples you provided are examples or even evidence of abiogenesis. There is no example of life spontaneously forming. Building blocks forming spontaneously mean nothing when there are many conditions that need to be fulfilled in synchronization.

Perhaps your biased sources aren’t giving you complete information.

Now your source is showing its complete ignorance of the relevant science. Why do you rely on such an ignorant source? Don’t you bother to check what they are telling you? The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, not either DNA or RNA. Your source fails to know even the basis of the relevant science. You are being hoodwinked by a source that is telling you sciency sounding rubbish. There are separate papers on the activity of random RNA, see Elkand, Szostak, Bartel (1995) for one example.

Wow, you actually think my source is that article I posted below the OP? Now you’re showing your ignorance here. My “sources” have been learned from all the article about abiogenesis. What was produced by that experiment were RNA molecules. I suggest you read up on the experiment and what happened (and what it means) before decreeing my “source” as rubbish.

chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Second site when one Googles “Miller-Urey experiment” I don’t need to dig up some biased misinformed site to support me.

You are correct that abiogenesis is a hypothesis. You are incorrect that there is no support for the hypothesis. Searching on Google Scholar I find over 3,000 papers on abiogenesis, and over 37,000 papers about prebiotic conditions and chemistry. I doubt if your source has even read one of those papers.

And I doubt your source has read the other source I posted above. There’s support for abiogenesis but support isn’t evidence, there’s also many more scientists against the idea because as my other source states above:

“There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller’s experiment because it is now believed that the early earth’s atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.”

In short, your source is providing you with false information. You would be wise to avoid using that source in future.

rossum

In short, my research was done based on all the science sites and academic papers regarding abiogenesis and the experiment. Yours is based on speculation. The only reason why some scientists consider abiogenesis as a possibility is because the only alternative is God and while I believe study in science can reveal evidence for his existence, putting God as the explanation is known as the “god of the gaps” argument which is something a scientist can’t do. They can believe in God certainly and say they believe their research asserts that he exists though but can’t say anything more unless they have definite proof of God. From a logical viewpoint though, creation - in the face of zero evidence for the very improbable abiogenesis - seems correct.

So until you put forth an actual argument demonstrating why abiogenesis is a possibility, there’s not much to discuss. The onus is on you and the atheist (or whoever else believes in the hypothesis) to prove abiogenesis and debunk the law of biogenesis.

 

[buffalo]

Your source is misinforming you. You can only claim these things as facts when a scientist comes forth with the evidence proving abiogenesis or at least providing some substantial evidence for it. My statement talking about “random chance and coincidence” refers to the concept of nothing from something (another impossibility that has not been observed ever).

Oh and don’t even think of bringing quantum mechanics into this as the vacuum isn’t nothing.

And what about your sources which base themselves off of speculation which is unfounded and blind? None of the examples you provided are examples or even evidence of abiogenesis. There is no example of life spontaneously forming. Building blocks forming spontaneously mean nothing when there are many conditions that need to be fulfilled in synchronization.

Perhaps your biased sources aren’t giving you complete information.

Wow, you actually think my source is that article I posted below the OP? Now you’re showing your ignorance here. My “sources” have been learned from all the article about abiogenesis. What was produced by that experiment were RNA molecules. I suggest you read up on the experiment and what happened (and what it means) before decreeing my “source” as rubbish.

chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Second site when one Googles “Miller-Urey experiment” I don’t need to dig up some biased misinformed site to support me.

And I doubt your source has read the other source I posted above. There’s support for abiogenesis but support isn’t evidence, there’s also many more scientists against the idea because as my other source states above:

“There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller’s experiment because it is now believed that the early earth’s atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.”

In short, my research was done based on all the science sites and academic papers regarding abiogenesis and the experiment. Yours is based on speculation and faith.

So until you put forth an actual argument demonstrating why abiogenesis is a possibility, there’s not much to discuss. The onus is on you and the atheist (or whoever else believes in the hypothesis) to prove abiogenesis and debunk the law of biogenesis.

The RNA world seems to be the same as the multiverse theory, the only place left to go to escape the latest findings.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Again, your source is feeding you false information. We do not have “no evidence”, but we have some evidence. Not as much as we would like, but some. Did your source tell you about lipid bilayers? Did it tell you that lipid bilayers form spontaneously? Did it tell you that bacterial cell membranes are made of lipid bilayers? Did your source tell you about experiments showing the formation of purines and pyrimidines through prebiotic processes? Do you know that the bases that make up DNA and RNA are composed of two purines and two pyrimidines? Perhaps your sources are not giving you complete information.

Since you were being such an uncharitable bully here, now it is my turn to poke holes in your words. I will be nicer than you were.

So what if lipid bilayers form spontaneously? What is that supposed to support? The membranes of cells are made up of more than lipid bilayers, and cellular membranes themselves aren’t formed unless coded for. It’s really a chicken and egg problem. Take for example the formation of a membrane bound nucleus in eukaryotes: we still do not know if the membrane for the nucleus was formed by phagocytosing membrane bound prokaryotes and housing genetic material in that membrane, or if the membrane only came about after mutations arose causing the eukaryote to code for such a membrane itself. Either explanation at this point is equally likely. Your “evidence” does not necessarily support anything. It implies nothing.

I dare you to go out and purchase aliquots of purines and pyrimidines (there are many more than just the five used in our nucleic acids) and mix them together and see what happens. Nothing will happen. The assembly of nucleic acids is a highly involved process requiring some of the most beautiful synchronization of enzymes. Do you really think that because we can find the ingredients in nature, that it necessarily implies how it all began? The certainty that you have in yourself and in your mediocre knowledge of science is infuriatingly arrogant.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

Umm. You guys know there is a ban on talking about evolution and atheism right?

 

[Truth777]

I had originally been very skeptical, but then, after systematic in-depth study of the primary scientific literature in the field (an in-depth study possible by me being a scientist in biochemistry myself), I concluded, at first rather reluctantly and only over time enthusiastically, that an origin of life by natural causes is highly probable.

The issue with natural causes is curious. Both atheists and creationists appear to have in common that they view natural causes as ‘godless’ causes, as being in competition with God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural causes are simply the secondary causes that God, as primary cause, uses to create and sustain the world. This, by the way, is mainstream Catholic teaching, fully in line with Thomistic philosophy which has had great influence on Catholic thinking.

What I can gather from this is that you believe God used nature as a secondary cause to create life and that he was the “spark” behind abiogenesis. Correct? Well as a believer, I do believe abiogenesis could be true if God initiated the process but everything I’ve read and all the experiments and research scientists have put into abiogenesis suggests that life cannot start by itself. This is the doctrine I’m debunking. The atheistic doctrine.

Whether God would use abiogenesis and evolution (because that’s what would come next and yes I know they are two different things) as tools is another subject.

Argument from ignorance of the scientific facts, and argument from incredulity.

Not really unless you can point out why I’m wrong and provide evidence. It wasn’t even an argument, it was a statement.

Nonsense. The Miller-Urey experiment dealt with amino acids, not with self-replicating RNA molecules, a concept not known to science at the time (1953). By the way, if you think the Miller-Urey experiment is still the Holy Grail of abiogenesis research, I have news for you: recent research of the last decade has far superseded that experiment, and only because of that recent research I have concluded that an origin of life by natural causes is highly probable. If you had asked me 10 years ago, before the groundbreaking scientific research of the last decade in abiogenesis, if an origin of life by natural causes was even remotely possible, I would have declared you crazy for even suggesting. And I would have agreed with your general viewpoint.

Well this is based on your speculation of the minimal knowledge that exists of abiogenesis. All the recent research suggests that the ancient Earth conditions mean that these molecules could not form here on Earth during the time that they were supposed too effectively throwing abiogenesis out of the window.

You are confusing the origin of life from non-life on the early Earth, beginning with very simple forms that gradually became more complex, with the fact that spontaneous generation of current complex life (and even the smallest bacterium is tremendously complex) is impossible. The latter is what Pasteur, rightfully, debunked.

And that’s exactly what I said. Abiogenesis is just the new hypothesis still build on the fundamental belief of spontaneous generation, that life can come from non-life.

 

[Truth777]

Umm. You guys know there is a ban on talking about evolution and atheism right?

Is there?

Well it’s my fault for bringing atheism up in the OP. Abiogenesis is mainly their stance hence why I mentioned it calling it the “atheist creation myth”…

This topic concerns the origin of life though.

 

[rossum]

A simple protein defies the odds.

And what evidence do you have the the first life used proteins? Please supply a reference, I am sure that many abiogenesis researchers would love to see such evidence.

You may want to look at the work being done on ribozymes. Proteins very probably came later once evolution had started. Simple probability calculations give incorrect results where evolution is concerned.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Is there?

Well it’s my fault for bringing atheism up in the OP. Abiogenesis is mainly their stance hence why I mentioned it calling it the “atheist creation myth”…

This topic concerns the origin of life though.

\

truth777, look over this site: IDvolution.org

 

[rossum]

That sounds like an act of faith in the power of science to explain everything!
On what rational foundation is it supported?

Please look at the top right of my ost, where it says religion. I do not think that science explains everything. However, it does explain some things.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is alive, He created all livings things, therefro life from Life.

Thank you for making my point for me. Creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. It ill-becomes then to criticise scientists for also not having an answer.

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

putting God as the explanation is known as the “god of the gaps” argument which is something a scientist can’t do.

A common slure arising from unbridled arrogance, from a missinterpretation of causality. Thomas Aquinas gave many sound philosophical arguments proving the existence of God and much about his nature, the human soul, etc.

But we also have Divine Revelation which is the strongest argument of all.

We do know one thing with absolute certitude. God created man and he creates each soul individually.

But let us suppose that these scientests actually succeded, not an impossibility. What would it prove or disprove. Nothing. We still would not know that science had created life. All we would know for sure is that science manufactured the correct conditions. God may well decide to place life in this manufactured thing.

And don’t we already have something similar taking place already. Test tube baby production has been succesful. Did that prove science created life. No. All it proved is that the correct physical conditions existed and life came into the foetus. God decided to create a soul for that little body.

So this whole question will have no effect at all on the creativity of God nor on the Truth of Divine Revelation. I’m sure it would shake the faith of some but not of all.

 

[rossum]

Wow, you actually think my source is that article I posted below the OP? Now you’re showing your ignorance here. My “sources” have been learned from all the article about abiogenesis. What was produced by that experiment were RNA molecules. I suggest you read up on the experiment and what happened (and what it means) before decreeing my “source” as rubbish.

chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Second site when one Googles “Miller-Urey experiment” I don’t need to dig up some biased misinformed site to support me.

Did you read your source? It tells us that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, as I said it did. The page, correctly, says nothing about RNA or DNA, since neither were produced in the Miller-Urey experiment.

You need to check your references very carefully before posting them.

“There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller’s experiment because it is now believed that the early earth’s atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.”

The M-U experiment has been repeated many times with many different variants on the atmosphere used. Amino acids are produced pretty much every time. Do you have evidence of any creator God producing amino acids?

In short, my research was done based on all the science sites and academic papers regarding abiogenesis and the experiment.

Either the papers were wrong or you misunderstood them. There is no RNA or DNA in the Miller-Urey experiment as you claimed in your OP.

So until you put forth an actual argument demonstrating why abiogenesis is a possibility, there’s not much to discuss. The onus is on you and the atheist (or whoever else believes in the hypothesis) to prove abiogenesis and debunk the law of biogenesis.

So, until you put forth actual evidence of God creating amino acids, DNA and RNA from nothing there is not much to discuss.

So far, scientific research has produced a lot more than creation research.

I am Buddhist, not atheist (look at the top right of my posts). I believe in a lot more gods than you do.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for making my point for me. Creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. It ill-becomes then to criticise scientists for also not having an answer.

rossum

Huh? Catholics know He did it. As earthly beings we may never know how. God is under no obligation to make sure we understand. It may be way over our heads.

Science is beginning to understand though information is important, something Revelation told us long ago.

 

[buffalo]

Did you read your source? It tells us that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, as I said it did. The page, correctly, says nothing about RNA or DNA, since neither were produced in the Miller-Urey experiment.

You need to check your references very carefully before posting them.

The M-U experiment has been repeated many times with many different variants on the atmosphere used. Amino acids are produced pretty much every time. Do you have evidence of any creator God producing amino acids?

Either the papers were wrong or you misunderstood them. There is no RNA or DNA in the Miller-Urey experiment as you claimed in your OP.

So, until you put forth actual evidence of God creating amino acids, DNA and RNA from nothing there is not much to discuss.

So far, scientific research has produced a lot more than creation research.

I am Buddhist, not atheist (look at the top right of my posts). I believe in a lot more gods than you do.

rossum

What? rossum my friend, this has to be one of your wackiest posts ever.

Did any of your gods do it? Is the god of BUC one of the Buddhist gods?

 

[rossum]

So what if lipid bilayers form spontaneously?

They emphasise my point that the OP’s reference to “random chance and coincidence” is incorrect. They form spontaneously due to well understood chemical processes.

Take for example the formation of a membrane bound nucleus in eukaryotes

The first life on earth was not a eukaryote, and did not have a nucleus. It was very probably a simple bag of chemicals, the membrane of the bag being a lipid bilayer.

The first life would have been vastly more primitive than anything alive today.

I dare you to go out and purchase aliquots of purines and pyrimidines (there are many more than just the five used in our nucleic acids) and mix them together and see what happens. Nothing will happen.

There is no need to dare me, the experiment has already been done many times. You could start by reading the paper I referenced in my post you are replying to. That deals with the activity of random pieces of RNA.

Do you really think that because we can find the ingredients in nature, that it necessarily implies how it all began?

Not “necessarily”, but certainly “possibly”. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, not a theory. We are steadily assembling more of the ingredients and are beginning to work out how they might have got together. Some, like lipid bilayers, are easy. Others, like RNA, are more difficult but we are making progress. It is very dangerous to say that science will “never” solve a problem; especially one where we are still making progress…

rossum

 

[rossum]

Huh? Catholics know He did it. As earthly beings we may never know how. God is under no obligation to make sure we understand. It may be way over our heads.

Unfortunately, He did not. Since He is both alive and not created, creation cannot be the explanation for the origin of life. At best creation can explain the first living being creating the second living being. It does not explain the origin of that first living being.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Unfortunately, He did not. Since He is both alive and not created, creation cannot be the explanation for the origin of life. At best creation can explain the first living being creating the second living being. It does not explain the origin of that first living being.

rossum

You are stuck on the uncreated or the uncaused cause? You think the answer is in the multiverse? It only pushes the question back.