• 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 Not Working, So What's Next? Panspermia.

james bond

Well-Known Member
Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952. Thus, it needed an update.

I don't think this is even a theory. It's hypothesis. I suspect it's gonna lead to aliens. This is why NASA thinks they'll find an extraterrestrial microbe in outer space or on another planet.

th


"Panspermia (also known as exogenesis) is a hypothesis that originated in the 19th century in opposition to the theory of spontaneous generation. Pansperia propounded that reproductive bodies (seeds) of living organisms exist throughout the universe and develop wherever the environment is favorable. The term is derived from the Greek word 'pan' meaning all and 'sperma' or seed. Exogenesis comes from the Greek words meaning outside origin. It is a hypothesis which maintains that microscopic living organisms came to our planet from outer space. It is largely distinguished in that it makes no prediction about how widespread life is in the cosmos.

The basic assertion of these hypotheticals is that primitive life, which originated elsewhere, was deposited on Earth’s surface by means of a collision with some other object that already harbored life. An asteroid or comet, perhaps containing primitive cells or simple bacteria, fell to Earth at some time in the past. Then over billions of years they evolved into the more advanced forms of life now spread across our planet. To date no meteorites have ever been shown to harbor bona fide life.

The search for extraterrestrial life (exobiology) has been repopularized upon the realization of the improbability that life formed through abiogenesis. Scientists have been unable to get a cell to form under any conceivable condition. Likewise it has also become clear that for the basic building blocks of life to form, oxygen must be absent, and yet oxides have been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.

Much of the research currently underway by NASA, such as the recent expedition to Mars, is aimed at finding proof that life might have begun elsewhere.

College biology textbooks nationwide either highlight or place front-and-center the "extraterrestrial origin of life" as the front-running theory of modern science.

These are only a few examples of how the concept is being seeded into the culture. Of concern for creationists: This not only mainstreams the idea of space-aliens as a valid scientific endeavor, it fully accepts the argument-from-design while at the same time co-opting and assimilating it into secular discussions, stripping it from creationist discussion."

Panspermia - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science."

"Popularization of science was of great concern to Arrhenius throughout his career. His most successful venture into this genre was Worlds in the Making (1908), originally published in Swedish and translated into several languages. In it he launched the hypothesis of panspermism—that is, he suggested life was spread about the universe by bacteria propelled by light pressure. These speculations have not found their way into modern cosmogony."

Svante Arrhenius, Swedish chemist
Svante Arrhenius | Swedish chemist
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I think life on earth was seeded and fostered forward by conscious intelligent beings. This belief comes from multiple spiritual sources I respect.

The abiogenesis from a sterile earth was always a tough swallow for me but from a physical only perspective I can not discard the possibility.

From Wikipedia:
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.

To me that just pushes the question of abiogenesis back a layer.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952. Thus, it needed an update.
Yes it has. Google.

I don't think this is even a theory. It's hypothesis. I suspect it's gonna lead to aliens. This is why NASA thinks they'll find an extraterrestrial microbe in outer space or on another planet.
First there was no life, then there was life. The only question is mechanism.

Does NASA think they're going to find extraterrestrial life? I don't know that they expect to, but I'm sure they hope to.
They know life appeared on this planet, and it's becoming increasingly evident that extrasolar planetary systems are more the rule than the exception. Assuming there's nothing extraordinary about our planet, and that life developed here, why could not the same thing occur elsewhere.

Panspermia doesn't address the abiogenesis-creationist issue at all. It just shifts the venue

The search for extraterrestrial life (exobiology) has been repopularized upon the realization of the improbability that life formed through abiogenesis.
There has been no such realization. Where did you get this?
Scientists have been unable to get a cell to form under any conceivable condition.
Yes, they have.
Likewise it has also become clear that for the basic building blocks of life to form, oxygen must be absent...
How is this clear? On the contrary, it's becoming more and more clear that life can exist in all kinds of extreme conditions.
I don't understand where you come up with your premises, JB. Can you post some links?
I think life on earth was seeded and fostered forward by conscious intelligent beings. This belief comes from multiple spiritual sources I respect.
So your views are based on revelation, not reason.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I think life on earth was seeded and fostered forward by conscious intelligent beings. This belief comes from multiple spiritual sources I respect.

The abiogenesis from a sterile earth was always a tough swallow for me but from a physical only perspective I can not discard the possibility.

From Wikipedia:
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.

To me that just pushes the question of abiogenesis back a layer.

There is no evidence nor any experiment done like Miller-Urey for panspermia. If it's everywhere, then why haven't we found it on earth? It's just more atheist science hooey for the evo thinkers to believe their god of evolution.

DR:wikipedia-ugh.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Yes it has. Google.

First there was no life, then there was life. The only question is mechanism.

Does NASA think they're going to find extraterrestrial life? I don't know that they expect to, but I'm sure they hope to.
They know life appeared on this planet, and it's becoming increasingly evident that extrasolar planetary systems are more the rule than the exception. Assuming there's nothing extraordinary about our planet, and that life developed here, why could not the same thing occur elsewhere.

Panspermia doesn't address the abiogenesis-creationist issue at all. It just shifts the venue

There has been no such realization. Where did you get this?
Yes, they have. How is this clear? On the contrary, it's becoming more and more clear that life can exist in all kinds of extreme conditions.
I don't understand where you come up with your premises, JB. Can you post some links?
So your views are based on revelation, not reason.

No use wasting my time googling false and fake atheist beliefs.

NASA haven't found a microbe with all their exploration on Mars, moon and asteroids already. Quit wasting tax payers money and let's colonize the moon or build better space stations.

I reason no microbe because conditions for life on earth and the universe being created is fine tuned.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no evidence nor any experiment done like Miller-Urey for panspermia. If it's everywhere, then why haven't we found it on earth? It's just more atheist science hooey for the evo thinkers to believe their god of evolution.
What does the Miller-Urey experiment have to do with panspermia? What evidence would you expect panspermia to leave for scientists to find?
What is your obsession with atheism? You seem to be conflating it with science. Anything you find emotionally disturbing you label "atheist" and then summarily dismiss as hooey.
Evolution isn't faith based. It's not anti-God. Like all science -- and unlike religion -- it's evidence based, falsifiable and subject to revision.

No use wasting my time googling false and fake atheist beliefs.
Who suggested you Google atheism? We're not talking about atheist beliefs. We're talking about science. I'm suggesting you familiarize yourself with the research that's been done in the 65 years since the experiment, before declaring there is none.
NASA haven't found a microbe with all their exploration on Mars, moon and asteroids already. Quit wasting tax payers money and let's colonize the moon or build better space stations.
We've found amino acids and possible microbe signs in meteorites, though, and what are you complaining is a waste of taxpayer money? Why is colonizing the moon and building space stations not a waste of money?
I reason no microbe because conditions for life on earth and the universe being created is fine tuned.
Balderdash!
[/quote][/QUOTE]
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
No use wasting my time googling false and fake atheist beliefs.

I was waiting to see what you'd have to say about @Valjean's comments... but it seems you don't even understand them - or were already predisposed to responding as if the comments had no merit. @Valjean said only this one thing about "panspermia":

Panspermia doesn't address the abiogenesis-creationist issue at all. It just shifts the venue

Which is actually slightly IN FAVOR of your premises dealing with the difficulty of abiogenesis (because it admits that you still have to deal with the problem of abiogenesis/genesis somewhere along the line), all the rest of the comments were directed toward your misrepresentation of modern-era scientific progress in examination of abiogenesis - and you come back with this(?):

NASA haven't found a microbe with all their exploration on Mars, moon and asteroids already. Quit wasting tax payers money and let's colonize the moon or build better space stations. I reason no microbe because conditions for life on earth and the universe being created is fine tuned.

Were you simply trying to prove you had NO IDEA what @Valjean was saying? This forum needs a virtual "dunce cap" or something... and a corner chair for behavior and intellectual tomfoolery like yours. The proclivity you have in discrediting yourself thread after thread, post after post is amazing. No, seriously... you're really, really good at it, and I don't think you even try.
 
Last edited:

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Even panspermia requires abiogenesis to have happened somewhere. The first seed didn't just "pop" into existence.

Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are both stupid ideas with no substance whatever.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is no evidence nor any experiment done like Miller-Urey for panspermia. If it's everywhere, then why haven't we found it on earth? It's just more atheist science hooey for the evo thinkers to believe their god of evolution.

DR:wikipedia-ugh.

First, the Miller-Urey experiment i an ok beginning, but it is old and does not reflect modern research into abiogenesis. You are neglecting 60+ years of research on abiogenesis.

Second, NASA's search for extraterrestrial life (microbes?) has no connection whatsoever with whether abiogenesis is a valid hypothesis or not. NASA has not expressed any opinion concerning abiogenesis.

Third, Panspermia is weak and has no known basis in science. The only thing we have is amino acids in meteorites striking the earth, and they are not from outside our solar system, and can possibly be a product of natural processes. It is extremely doubtful if not impossible for microbes to survive the heat of entry and impact on the earth surface.

There is also the foolish alien conspiracy option that aliens came to earth and seeded life, and plan to come back and harvest the fruits of their labor.

Fourth, this is a classic example of non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow the previous statement. Your argument is based on a Theist agenda, and not science.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
There is no reason to expect abiogenesis to "go further" at all, regardless of any so-called "controversies" about the origin of life.

There is a limit to what can be done in laboratory. Scientists are not all-powerful.

So-called "creationists" should learn to hold realistic expectations, to present honest arguments, and to handle their existential anxieties a bit better.

Of course, it would help a lot indeed if they simply attained better education and awareness of basic science.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So your views are based on revelation, not reason.
I believe it is based on reason too. For me it becomes reasonable to consider and learn from all sources I rationally and reasonably have examined and believe know more than me. This includes those who I consider to be souls and beings more advanced than me.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
What does the Miller-Urey experiment have to do with panspermia? What evidence would you expect panspermia to leave for scientists to find?
What is your obsession with atheism? You seem to be conflating it with science. Anything you find emotionally disturbing you label "atheist" and then summarily dismiss as hooey.
Evolution isn't faith based. It's not anti-God. Like all science -- and unlike religion -- it's evidence based, falsifiable and subject to revision.

Who suggested you Google atheism? We're not talking about atheist beliefs. We're talking about science. I'm suggesting you familiarize yourself with the research that's been done in the 65 years since the experiment, before declaring there is none.
We've found amino acids and possible microbe signs in meteorites, though, and what are you complaining is a waste of taxpayer money? Why is colonizing the moon and building space stations not a waste of money?
Balderdash!

Heh. What does Miller-Urey have to do with abiogenesis or anything? What a waste of time that was. I do not think panspermia will leave anything just like SETI or else we would've found it already on earth. There has been no compelling evidence of extraterrestrial life has yet been found in astrobiology. Panspermia from 1908 has suggested life was spread about the universe by bacteria propelled by light pressure What a crock that is.

Again you misread what I posted because I said atheist scientists or atheist science. Just what about abiogenesis or panspermia is evidence-based and falsifiable? It sounds like fake science.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
First, the Miller-Urey experiment i an ok beginning, but it is old and does not reflect modern research into abiogenesis. You are neglecting 60+ years of research on abiogenesis.

Second, NASA's search for extraterrestrial life (microbes?) has no connection whatsoever with whether abiogenesis is a valid hypothesis or not. NASA has not expressed any opinion concerning abiogenesis.

Third, Panspermia is weak and has no known basis in science. The only thing we have is amino acids in meteorites striking the earth, and they are not from outside our solar system, and can possibly be a product of natural processes. It is extremely doubtful if not impossible for microbes to survive the heat of entry and impact on the earth surface.

There is also the foolish alien conspiracy option that aliens came to earth and seeded life, and plan to come back and harvest the fruits of their labor.

Fourth, this is a classic example of non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow the previous statement. Your argument is based on a Theist agenda, and not science.

Miller-Urey was not an okay beginning. All it did was get Carl Sagan to masturbate.

NASA's search for a microbe has everything to do with panspermia and astrobiology since abiogenesis was a fail.

Panspermia is just as weak as abiogenesis.

Ever heard of Drake's equation? I wouldn't bet on that. The atheist scientists will be trying to convince you of panspermia and astrobiology.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
NASA's search for a microbe has everything to do with panspermia and astrobiology since abiogenesis was a fail..

Please cite NASA specifically to back up these assertions. NASA has made no statement concerning abiogenesis either way.

Ever heard of Drake's equation? I wouldn't bet on that.

Drake's equation is not meaningful, because there is nothing to base it on, and as yet, no evidence of alien life outside our solar system, nor of any version of Panspermia.

You foul denigrating way of communicating puts you in the sewer.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Heh. What does Miller-Urey have to do with abiogenesis or anything? What a waste of time that was.
What does it have to do with abiogenesis? The whole purpose of the experiment was to learn more about the mechanisms of abiogenesis -- and why do you say it was a waste of time?
I do not think panspermia will leave anything just like SETI or else we would've found it already on earth.
Even if there are extraterrestrial organisms, finding a few microbes on a whole planet isn't very likely., and If we found them, how would we know they were extraterrestrial?
Again you misread what I posted because I said atheist scientists or atheist science. Just what about abiogenesis or panspermia is evidence-based and falsifiable? It sounds like fake science.
Finding microbes in space or in meteorites is evidence of possibility. Identifying extraterrestrial organisms on Earth would be further evidence.
Abiogenesis has been extensively researched, and is an active area of study. Wouldn't observing abiogenesis qualify as evidence?
Apparently you don't believe in abiogenesis. What alternatives do you imagine, and what evidence of them exists?
NASA's search for a microbe has everything to do with panspermia and astrobiology since abiogenesis was a fail.
Panspermia is just as weak as abiogenesis.
I'm pretty sure NASA isn't specifically researching abiogenesis. It's interested in everything it might discover, including life. As for panspermia, only you seem to think it's considered a serious contender. Moreover, it's not an alternative to life from non life. As I said before, it just shifts the venue.
Ever heard of Drake's equation? I wouldn't bet on that. The atheist scientists will be trying to convince you of panspermia and astrobiology.
There you go again with your "atheist scientists." What scientists are proposing or researching panspermia?
Drake's equation? -- hopeful guesswork.

JB, I'm sorry, but your posts are incoherent, you don't seem to grasp our replies, you're scientifically illiterate, you're cognitively disorganized and you refuse to consider or even read, evidence presented you.
Are you just trolling, or...?
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I agree that abiogenesis is still valid theory according to science and that it's perfectly reasonable to continue to explore the possibilities of how exactly life came to be. I don't have a problem with panspermia as a theory either and like you say it simply changes the venue.
I like the video. It really does a wonderful job at explaining how random chance vs intelligent design as a means of the creation of life is a Black & White Fallacy and explaining how Argument from Improbability randomly assigns significance.

It's pretty good at explaining why life occurring by chance isn't ruled out because it's improbable. It does however make a mistake when talking about Natural Selection...
We has this discussion before, but essentially natural selection isn't as simple as described in the video. Natural Selection is related to how life continues to evolve given that it already exists. Natural Selection is not an explanation of how life began at all (it's not a "third possibility"). Saying that life began because of Natural Selection is like saying that the "universe" adapted to the "universe" to create life which implies that the universe was alive to begin with and that life isn't something that "began" but rather something that always was.

I also want to point out that although the video correctly points out the flaw in Argument from Improbability as a means of dismissing Random Chance as an explanation for the origin of life, Argument from Improbability remains fully applicable to our expectations about how life evolves. In other words, if life were randomly changing, life would breakdown. Life doesn't breakdown. I think the video says this in simplistic terms. He says, "Natural Selection is not random". He doesn't actually explain why Natural Selection isn't random.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
There is much less than a 1% chance that the universe will cease to exist in an eye blink. The same probability exists that abiogenesis somehow happened. So what you are saying is that since abiogenesis 'obviously' happened, the universe should certainly cease to exist quite soon. Good to know.

Of course there is a much better and more likely possibility...
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952. Thus, it needed an update.

That's incorrect. You should probably do a little investigating first before making fatal comments like that. I have a nice summary of much of the progress that has been made if you're interested.

I don't think this is even a theory. It's hypothesis.

You are correct. Worse, although it may be correct, it cannot be falsified if it is not, meaning that it is not a scientific hypothesis.

There are other problems. Even if scientists uncover paths that abiogenesis might have taken, unless a fossil of the first cell can be found somewhere - and how would you know that it was first rather than having already evolved from something else that was first? - there would be no way to demonstrate that any particular pathway was was the pathway nature actually took.

But none of this is a problem for naturalism. Much as we might like to, it isn't necessary to solve this riddle.

Since you have no way to rule out naturalistic abiogenesis, if you want to make a case for creationism, you'll need to demonstrate why it is correct. First, you might want to demonstrate why it is even a possibility. Show us compelling evidence for a creator.

You won't make any progress focusing on what you think that nature can't do.
 
Top