• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenesis Is Highly Unlikely

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Maybe we'll find something that suggests abiogenesis is impossible, but we have no indication that this is the case at this stage. Best for all of us to proceed with an open mind.
I rather expect it to be deterministic like the rest of chemistry.

As in: IF chemical X and Y are present in an environment A and B... THEN life is inevitable.
I also expect there to be multiple different paths that can end up in roughly the same result. Multiple environments where the required "chemistry" not only can, but WILL take place.

If that is correct then the probability of abiogenesis would be calculated by the probability of having those chemicals in the given environments.
It could still be small off course. But I think it's an important nuance. It's not the chemical reaction that has low probability. Chemical reactions have a probability of 1 in 1, given the circumstances allow for the chemistry to happen. If it can happen, it WILL happen.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible

And i think it is possible, you are here aren't you?

All of existence without life had no meaning.

Existence has no meaning anyway, and life has the meaning you give to it.

That’s why God had to create life himself.

Eh? I don't believe abiogenesis so I'll guess based on my beliefs.

The question is when did God do this?

Which god?

Re your image.

No experimental evidence that god did it either.

Not really when you understand some biology.

Word salad

Wrong, tye double helix is a natural phenomenon

So what?

They are replaced regularly
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Some time ago I noticed that it may be disorienting to talk about cell biology in humans; with something around a trillion cells, events that are highly unlikely are also an everyday occurrence. It may be difficult to follow and perhaps even counter-intuitive.

I suspect that talk about abiogenesis has a comparable challenge. Abiogenesis can well be both very unlikely and a virtual unavoidability, depending on perspective and expectations.

Sure, life does not arise in routine chemistry experiments. But once you take into account that there are whole planets and billions of years of somewhat chaotic environment for it to arise, what is otherwise unlikely may become very likely indeed.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible. All of existence without life had no meaning. That’s why God had to create life himself. The question is when did God do this? I googled points against abiogenesis and this popped up.

View attachment 97685
What was critical to abiogenesis was water. Water and oil do not mix. Water and the organics of life (analogous to oil) will not fully mix, thereby allowing water to segregate and separate the organics into compartments in a repeatable way, all based on minimizing surface tension. If we shake water and oil, such as Italian Salad dressing, we can emulsify the vinegar-water and olive oil. But if allowed to sit, the water and oil will eventually separate the same way each time. Water helped to separate the organics of life, into repeatable compartments. This is not about random, but rather order, since the goal is to minimize surface tension and there are sweet spots for minimal energy.

There is a tendency to visualize the organic, all by themselves, requiring random interaction assumptions. But once you add water we get the water and oil effect and the organic have no choice, since water is the main component of life. The bi-layered lipid membrane will reform again and again. Since water will still make contact with the interior and exterior surface of the membrane, this residual surface tension adds surface energy. More change can occur.

The DNA double helix is induced by water. It is the minimal energy conformation of the DNA in water, with Beta-DNA, which is most common in life, having the most hydrated water. The sugars and bases on the DNA, are oily to the water, and these need to be buried with the double helix the minimum energy state. Water also forms a double helix within the DNA double helix; major and minor grooves. If we substituted say an alcohol for water, since alcohol is a better degreaser, the DNA would become more inside out. But water, of all the solvents, has the biggest and best water and oil repulsion effect. Water even packs protein into their bioactive state; minimizes their impact on water.

The thermodynamic equilibrium of making protein from amino acids, wants to decompose proteins back to amino acids. The reason is the polymerization reaction gives off water, and when proteins are submerged in water, the water inhibits the forward reaction and tend to reverse what already formed.

There is an applied science work around, for this bottleneck, but it involves rethinking the term fossil fuels. The Miller Experiments besides making a wide range of amino acids also generated complex resinous solids to complex to analyze in the 1950's. Based on his experiments and these resin solids, it is likely the earth was also making the precursor materials, for fossil fuels, even before there was life. There was oil before life.

If we assume, that for the sake of argument, there was oil, a polymerization of amino acids to protein within oil, solves the water problem. The water generated, will separate out of the oil, allowing the reactions to move forward. Emulsion polymerization is a common technique for some plastics. There would be an emulsion of oil and some water, animo acids, and protein.

Science assumes that the earth did not have an initial oxygen atmosphere. Oxygen appeared with the rise of plant life and photosynthesis. Abiogenesis would avoid the degrading effect of oxidation. The mostly Nitrogen atmosphere would be good gas to preserve organics during abiogenesis. Nature had it all planned out.

The current theory uses dice and cards to explain evolutionary change, whereas I prefer use the power of the 2nd law and this natural universal drift toward higher complexity. Life learned to harness the 2nd law, and thereby created a faster lane for the drift. Water plays a role in this harnessing of the 2nd law.

When water packs protein into bio-active shapes, to lower surface tension, this lowers the protein entropy; simpler state than expanded and wiggling. This sets an entropic potential for change; catalysis. If we take the sum of a full cell of protein, with water dealing with all the protein, we have a large cell zone of diminished entropy. A cell cycle is a movement to a more complex state; form two from one. That solves the entropy deficit problem. Theoretically than can occur even before we have official life.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible.
How can you say that with any kind of confidence if you need to Google for the most basic arguments against it (and just blindly copy the AI-generated results)? You can't even decide between "highly unlikely" and "impossible". If you're going to reach a definitive conclusion on a topic, you have to demonstrate at least some basic understanding of it.

All of existence without life had no meaning. That’s why God had to create life himself.
That is just an empty assertion. You've not even tried to explain how that could happen in the same way hypotheses for abiogenesis have been presented (hence the challenges and questions your AI results picked up on). Also, why couldn't God have triggered abiogenesis?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible. All of existence without life had no meaning. That’s why God had to create life himself. The question is when did God do this? I googled points against abiogenesis and this popped up.

View attachment 97685
The lack of experimental evidence counts against any god. There is none, and not only that it must begin that we assume a god exists. This is an extra step and something that must be addressed on its own. And ultimately the Bible says we were made from dirt.
Complexity of life isn't even a valid point. That deals with evolution, nit abiogenesis, and evolution itself is full of change that no one sees due to its long, drawn out process. Except documenting things has let us see these small, gradual changes add up with species going the way of a new species.
DNA base pairing, the odds are not essentially zero. It happened. We see the results of it constantly. However, as a poker player I've never seen a Royal Flush. Those odds are small but not "essentially zero." Plus with or without a god it's how our DNA is so whatever the answer is the number cannot be zero.
Protien damage and movement needs clarified, and as for.degredation that's just life. Everything decays.
A.d thermodynamics, how is that a thing still? It doesn't even really apply to biology but physics and is about energy and motion, not polymerization. It explains why perpetual motion machines will never happen, it doesn't tell us about biology and evolution.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible. All of existence without life had no meaning. That’s why God had to create life himself. The question is when did God do this? I googled points against abiogenesis and this popped up.

View attachment 97685
It seems to me that the problem with your argument is not the probability or improbability of the biochemical process of abiogenesis but the fact that your argument presupposes either a geocentric universe or a god whose domain only includes the Earth.

In one of his essays ('Religion and Rocketry'?), C.S. Lewis showed that the question of extra-terrestrial life placed Christians on the horns of a dilemma; either the Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the universe, or extra-terrestrial life is abundant. If the Earth is the only life-bearing planet, its utter insignificance in the universe as a whole makes it impossible that the universe was created to be a home for life. If extra-terrestrial life is abundant, it is difficult to understand why the Earth, out of the approximately 10^23 planets in the universe, should be chosen to be the scene of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, with the promise of eternal punishment in hell for those of us who don't believe the story.

Of course, Lewis managed to devise a sophistical argument that enabled him not only to evade the horns of the dilemma but to turn them against the unbelievers. However, it seems to me that the dilemma still exists.

If the Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the universe, the universe was not designed to be a home for life, therefore life is an unimportant part of the universe, and the question of the probability of abiogenesis becomes unimportant. The important question becomes what the universe was designed for, perhaps for the creation of supermassive black holes.

If extra-terrestrial life is abundant, either God had to miraculously create life on countless millions of planets throughout the universe (making terrestrial life relatively unimportant), or life arose on these planets by natural processes, in which case abiogenesis is at least possible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your opinion is noted.



Your bare claim is noted.



Your loaded question is noted.


Your intellectually dishonest active search to find reasons to cater to your a priori bias, is also noted.


Now go and search for points in support of abiogenesis.
And use "Duck Duck Go" instead of Google to avoid Google's algorithms to serve you only with results that keep you inside your bubble of interest/bias.
Even Google was rather shameful in its response to me in its "AI Overview". It cited the Miller-Urey experiment as being the main evidence for abiogenesis.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible. All of existence without life had no meaning. That’s why God had to create life himself. The question is when did God do this? I googled points against abiogenesis and this popped up.

View attachment 97685
I find it really annoying when people who don't
understand thermodynamics cite it as a reason
against evolution or abiogenesis.
The other claims are equally groundless or irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t think abiogenesis is possible.
However unlikely abiogenesis may be, we know it happened at least once on earth, and 3.5 billion years or more later, here we all are. It's an area of active enquiry in science, and every now and then the discovery of another apparently relevant aspect of research is announced.

If the existence of life is said to be the result of an act by God, isn't God alive? Isn't one of [his] titles "the living God"?

That means you need to account for how the life of God's first ancestor, began.

And where God sits in the tree of godlife. After all, [he]'s not the first of [his] species, and doesn't appear till around 1500 BCE, when the earth was already some 4.5 bn years old. There had been many gods not less than two thousand years before then, and at a credible guess, there had been gods on earth tens of thousands of years earlier than [him].

And that's just on earth. The universe appears to be 9.5 bn years older than our solar system.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I find it really annoying when people who don't
understand thermodynamics cite it as a reason
against evolution or abiogenesis.
The other claims are equally groundless or irrelevant.
I took several physics courses at uni and I wouldn't have confidence in determining what is and isn't allowed by thermondynamics.

The people who heard a word a few times, and then decided that they now know more than all the people with phds, blow my mind.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I took several physics courses at uni and I wouldn't have confidence in determining what is and isn't allowed by thermondynamics.

The people who heard a word a few times, and then decided that they now know more than all the people with phds, blow my mind.
I took only 2 courses in thermodynamics.
But I aced'm both. No mistakes on any test.
And I struggle to understand it.
I don't claim that I do.
But I can make a few basic claims with confidence.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That is all very nice,

Now if you would show us your probability calculations for this god which is so much more complex and hence improbable of arising.

Or are you just assuming your conclusion? very poor logic that.
Those are big positive and controversial claims……….wound you make a onetime exception and support your assertions?...................or should I add this to the list of claims that are supposed to be true* because you say so* ?

¿why would god be complex and imporable?
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
I find it really annoying when people who don't
understand thermodynamics cite it as a reason
against evolution or abiogenesis.
The other claims are equally groundless or irrelevant.
Oh, that’s just some stuff that popped up on Google. I have my own personal reasons as to why I think AbioGenesis never happened as you’re well aware.
 
Top