McBell
Unbound
Rather difficult to take you seriously now.
-
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.
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
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
Who says abiogenesis has not got much further?
Example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
Certainty not science, given the knowledge of conditions at the time of abiogenesis it is the best theory of how life began on this planet.
I've accumulated assorted articles from assorted Internet sources that discuss abiogenesis at multiple levels between the formation of monomeric biolomolecules like amino acids (Miller-Urey) and the development of proto-cells that can reproduce and evolve..
It'll require considerable effort on your part to review it all, but you can also just look at the titles and recognize that we are far beyond 1952 and Miller-Urey (the first link below). I don't expect you to read it all. I didn't. Just note how much more there is than what you claimed existed earlier when you said that no progress had been made since 1952:
********
Some significant experiments that demonstrate testable predictions of abiogenesis are:
Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793
Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine)- biology-direct.com/content/5/1/36
Abiogenesis and the origin of life - Topix poster Dogen
45 papers on abiogenesis abiogenesis - PubMed - NCBI 656 on Origins of life "origins of life" - PubMed - NCBI
"Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab" http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules The Origin of Life
Protocell formation: A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications
Protocells make RNA nucleotides - nonenzymatic RNA copying succeeded inside a fatty acid vesicle. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
Protocells which ingest, replicate, mature and divide http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150929/ncomms9352/full/ncomms9352.html
A protobiont so life-like, that certain marine bacteria respond to it as if it were living prey
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v1/n5/full/nchem.296.html
Protocells which grow, catalyze and compete http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v5/n6/full/nchem.1650.html
Protocell membranes which selectively absorb molecules and grow http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v6/n6/full/nchem.1921.html
Protocells which grow and spontaneously divide, accompanied by distribution of the DNA to the daughter vesicles http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n10/full/nchem.1127.html
Protocell membranes allow the passage of nucleotides, which then take part in efficient template copying in the protocell interior. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18528332
Protocell research which demonstrates electron transfer reactions http://astrobiology.com/2014/03/fuel-cells-may-have-answers-to-origin-of-life-on-earth.html
***********
If life started abiogenically on earth, then inorganics should form organics under early earth conditions -----> This hypothesis tested and confirmed with the spontaneous generation of 30 different amino acids from simple inorganics, under a variety of early earth conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#Recent_related_studies
If life started abiogenically on earth, then organics should form more complex organics under early earth conditions ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by the reactions of the organic formamide, which produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals. Formamide is common in the Universe, produced by the reaction of water and hydrogen cyanide.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22738728
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614101957.htm
If life started abiogenically on earth, then complex organics should have formed pre-cell like structures under early earth conditions. ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by a self organized cell structure - a protocell formed from lipid molecules - which self-proliferates for multiple generations and exhibits a primitive model cell cycle comprising four discrete phases of ingestion, replication, maturity and division.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9352
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I said "beyond the Bible says so". You literally quoted a CLAIM in the bible. Claims are not evidence of anything.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Thank you. That was quite annoying. He literally quoted the Bible and then said it's common sense that he is right. Quite the pathetic argument.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
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
Same with multiverses, when all else fails, move the 'natural mechanism' entirely beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation- off the scientific pitch altogether- where it belonged all along?
james bond
Well-Known Member
james bond
Well-Known Member
That was just some of what has been discovered about abiogenesis since the early fifties, and it was too long for you to read. Doesn't that pretty much disconfirm your claim in the OP?
I think it's "too long, didn't read." I felt like answering in kind: tsbu (too short, barely understood)
james bond
Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the briefer history of abiogenesis.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why is it obvious? I have devoted quite a bit of time and consider myself to be at least a semi-intelligent and observant individual. So, what am I missing? Nature has proven to be capable of creating beauty, diversity, understanding, love, empathy, etc. So, why is it so obvious, in your opinion, that God is responsible?
McBell
Unbound
This makes it sound as though you do not want to understand the truth and facts....
Bingo!
There is no history of abiogenesis. There are multiple hypothetical theories on the subject. But it is still the subject of research.
And when people give you simplistic versions of the best answers to date, you dismiss them out of hand.
It seems to me like what's going on is you protecting your self image as smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people, including Dawkins and such.
Tom
So you're either saying you're a dimwit who can't understand complex issues --in which case your opinion is invalid -- or you're deliberately dodging the facts.
Pick one.
Remember, this wasn't about teaching him the science. It was just letting him know that the line he wrote in the OP, "Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952" was incorrect.
All he was being taught was that there was much more since then, and he was only asked to read the titles of the papers to get a sense of the robustness of the research since the fifties.
Then he told us that that was too much effort. He wants to do even less.
All he was being taught was that there was much more since then, and he was only asked to read the titles of the papers to get a sense of the robustness of the research since the fifties.
Then he told us that that was too much effort. He wants to do even less.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I'm saying the poster can't explain squat.