Abiogenesis Is Not Working, So What's Next? Panspermia.

[DavidFirth]

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.

Do post this "progress" of yours. I need a good laugh.

 

[Valjean]

... Argument Who's 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.

Life doesn't break down because any random changes -- I'm assuming you're referring to variation -- are sorted. Beneficial variants tend to be retained, harmful ones are weeded out, and neutral ones are at the mercy of genetic drift.
The non-randomness of natural selection isn't the subject of this video, but there are thousands of others explaining selection.
I'm surprised you bring this up. Do you question natural selection? If so, why?

 

[Ponder This]

Life doesn't break down because any random changes -- I'm assuming you're referring to variation -- are sorted. Beneficial variants tend to be retained, harmful ones are weeded out, and neutral ones are at the mercy of genetic drift.
The non-randomness of natural selection isn't the subject of this video, but there are thousands of others explaining selection.
I'm surprised you bring this up. Do you question natural selection? If so, why?

The main point of the video is that: Argument from Improbability isn't valid. I agree with this main point. It doesn't mean I agree with everything the video said (particularly in application to the discussion at hand). I was trying to be clear about that.

In the video he says, "Natural Selection proves that life isn't the product of chance". It's such an important statement that he places the sentence on screen for viewers to read in addition to hear. But Natural Selection concerns itself with how life changes - not how life began.

Argument from Improbability can't be used to dismiss abiogenesis or panspermia.
Natural Selection can't be used to dismiss abiogenesis or panspermia either.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do post this "progress" of yours. I need a good laugh.

Nah. Try Google. I post for people with open minds.

 

[james bond]

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.



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.

Sure, why not? Whatcha got?

I think the smarter atheist scientists have gone elsewhere such as outer space. For example, NASA's chief scientist predicts finding an alien microbe within the decade.

 

[DavidFirth]

Nah. Try Google. I post for people with open minds.

That's what I thought. I've heard all the hot air and crazy theoretical assumptions, but thanks, I have better things to do.

 

[columbus]

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.

This "isn't even wrong".
There's no connection between your assessment of the odds of the universe blinking out of existence and naturalistic abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is as close to an absolute as we can get. At one point there was no life as we know it, then there was. That's abiogenesis. Whether it was the result of a magic trick by the deity of your choice or a natural process that can be investigated, it's still abiogenesis.

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

Yeah right. Some bronze age goat herders, who didn't even know where babies come from, knew more about the origins of life than modern scientists.

The ability of religionists to say this sort of thing with a straight face is why I don't trust them concerning more important things.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

Abiogenesis is as close to an absolute as we can get. At one point there was no life as we know it, then there was. That's abiogenesis. Whether it was the result of a magic trick by the deity of your choice or a natural process that can be investigated, it's still abiogenesis.

Wrong. Creation does not involve abiogenesis. Abiogenesis involves the "random chance" that life somehow came about without a creator.

God spoke the universe into being. There was no abiogenesis involved when God created.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

"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

Beyond the mere fact that we haven't found extraterrestrial life yet, which is to be expected, why do you think that it doesn't exist in the universe? Obviously, other "earth-like planets" are far too far away for us to travel to and, likewise, they are far too far for other lifeforms to travel to us, our lack of finding extraterrestrial life as of yet doesn't evidence anything either way. So, why do you think extraterrestrial life doesn't exist?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

"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

I agree that abiogenesis is a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. Anyone with knowledge of the subject would not disagree. But, that doesn't mean that there haven't been recent advancement in understanding the origin of life. Here is an example of how scientific advancement is getting us closer to a better understanding of the subject:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

 

[columbus]

Wrong. Creation does not involve abiogenesis. Abiogenesis involves the "random chance" that life somehow came about without a creator.

As usual, the problem with this is a religionist who doesn't understand the concept.
If there was no life and then there was, abiogenesis has occurred.
It might have happened due to an unexplained process a few thousand years ago, as described in the Bible. It might have happened a few billion years ago, due to an unlikely combination of molecules and circumstances.
But abiogenesis happened. Only if the universe came into existence already containing living things would there not be abiogenesis of some sort.

The only real question is how and about when. I'm uninclined to accept the goddidit theory because religionists are so inclined to assert implausible things like they're obvious.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Abiogenesis is as close to an absolute as we can get. At one point there was no life as we know it, then there was. That's abiogenesis. Whether it was the result of a magic trick by the deity of your choice or a natural process that can be investigated, it's still abiogenesis.

Wrong. Creation does not involve abiogenesis. Abiogenesis involves the "random chance" that life somehow came about without a creator.

God spoke the universe into being. There was no abiogenesis involved when God created.

Beyond "the Bible says so", what proof do you have that "God spoke the universe into being"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Abiogenesis involves the "random chance" that life somehow came about without a creator.

Hypotheses for the origins of the first life on earth center on chemical reactions. Chemistry is decidedly non-random. You didn't know that?

 

[Valjean]

That's what I thought. I've heard all the hot air and crazy theoretical assumptions, but thanks, I have better things to do.

If you've heard them you've obviously not understood them. Personally, I doubt you're really conversant with the subject.
"Theoretical assumptions" by the way, sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

I agree that abiogenesis is a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory.

I see it as an observation. It might be included as evidence in the formation of a hypothesis, but it's not a hypothesis in and of itself.

 

[DavidFirth]

Beyond "the Bible says so", what proof do you have that "God spoke the universe into being"?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It's obvious that God created. To deny it is to deny basic intelligence.

 

[DavidFirth]

If you've heard them you've obviously not understood them. Personally, I doubt you're really conversant with the subject.
"Theoretical assumptions" by the way, sounds a bit like an oxymoron.
I see it as an observation. It might be included as evidence in the formation of a hypothesis, but it's not a hypothesis in and of itself.

Abiogenesis itself is an oxymoron.

 

[columbus]

Beyond "the Bible says so", what proof do you have that "God spoke the universe into being"?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It's obvious that God created. To deny it is to deny basic intelligence.

"Beyond the Bible says so...",
And then you quote the Bible?

The inability of religionists to grasp basic logic and reason is solid proof to me that they don't know any more about God than I do.
Tom

 

[McBell]

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...

Please show your math.

Thank you.

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis itself is an oxymoron.

You don't believe in chemistry?

 

[McBell]

You don't believe in chemistry?

Chemistry is Satan's way of removing God from the world.
I thought EVERYONE knew that!