Abiogenesis or the Lord?

[Subduction Zone]

Think about it

When a moderator warns you about a rule that you are breaking it is unwise to repeat that error.

 

[Jimmy]

When a moderator warns you about a rule that you are breaking it is unwise to repeat that error.

Oops he's staff now haha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops he's staff now haha

He has been for some time. Look below his avatar. None of them hide the fact here.

 

[Ella S.]

I began to write a carefully thought-out response to this thread, referencing in detail a wide range of studies showing how we can go from basic chemicals all the way to protocells step-by-step, and how each of these steps have been replicated in a lab.

Of course, then I realized I was being a total idiot.

Here's the problem: we don't actually have a rigorous, wide-spread definition of when precisely life arises from non-life. We don't really have a rigid enough definition of what life is for us to draw the line at some specific point during the process of abiogenesis as "the part where life is synthesized."

Abiogenesis in particular is one of the most complicated examples of this problem, because the model hypothetically shows a gradual transition between non-life to life. We call this "chemical evolution," and it is quite similar to the problem we have in biological evolution where it's difficult to say precisely when a new species has evolved since evolutionary processes work so gradually on the scale of whole populations.

So, vulcanlogician and ChristineM are both right and both wrong. We have synthesized life from non-life, but we also haven't made life yet, it all depends on which of the competing definitions you're using and where you want to place the goalpost.

Personally, the matter feels a bit like the arguments over "missing links" in biological evolution in that the general process has more or less been demonstrated; we just don't have every single specific detail down to complete certainty. I will concede that biological evolution is more supported by the evidence and is known in better detail than abiogenesis.

However, abiogenesis is already more plausible than divine intervention, for a number of reasons, so I think in general the point is kind of moot. It's already demonstrated itself to be a better explanation than the supernatural, even as a hypothetical model, despite the fact that we're still making new discoveries regarding it. I think it would be illogical to believe in explanations that are less likely simply because our current best explanation isn't as well-supported as it could be.

So I think the foundations of this conversation are a bit misleading. It's not about whether we have replicated life in a lab or not, whatever you might think would count as that. It's about which of the two competing hypotheses are more supported by the empirical evidence and makes less assumptions about the world we inhabit. That's abiogenesis no contest.

 

[Valjean]

Until they make life from non organic components in a lab I’ll roll with god

Why do you think this could not be done? Why non-organic? How do you make living things without carbon?

Components of life have already assembled themselves under the microscope, and combined into self contained, self replicating structures. This is simple chemistry that can be done in a high school lab.
@Christine also mentioned one of the several experiments with the creation of various types of artificial life. Are you familiar with these?

Again, what is it about life that makes it impossible to create in the lab? Is there something special about it; something magical?

"Goddidit" explains nothing. It posits no mechanism, only an agent. It asserts who, but not how.
Science investigates mechanism: how, not who. It explains, rather than attributes.

Q: What evidence underlies your assertion that goddidit, or that we're incapable of doing it ourselves?

I got a feeling a lot of people would like to see a abiogenesis re-created in a lab just so they can say see God didn’t create life. Haha

False dilemma. The two aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

I think what scientist fear is that AbioGenesis can’t even have happened in reality billions of years ago so that would prove that God would’ve had to create life. That’s why they’re so intent on doing it in a lab. I mean it’s cool. I love science but sometimes The hand of God might be needed. Haha

Scientists research because they're curious about how the world works, they don't worry about competing claims, and rarely give religion a second thought.
In fact, science welcomes competing claims, as long as they're accompanied by evidence. Religious claims, thus far, have been faith, not evidence based.

 

[Valjean]

It's pronounced "way" in these parts but it's still spelled "oui"

Moi, j'écris habituellement "ouais."

 

[JDMS]

We might. But does demonstration of abiogenesis rule out God?

I got a feeling a lot of people would like to see a abiogenesis re-created in a lab just so they can say see God didn’t create life. Haha

This is something I point out often, even as an atheist. Dan is correct; abiogenesis being possible does not rule out the existence of god(s), or the possibility that a hypothetical god created life through supernatural means. That's not how evidence works. It just fills in gaps, like every other discovery humans have ever made.

On another note... if your trust in God would topple simply because scientists were able to use chemistry in a lab to create life, your belief is not a very good or strong one. The fact that Dan is still a Christian despite his understanding of the natural world says a lot about his faith. Why is yours so weak, Moon?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is something I point out often, even as an atheist. Dan is correct; abiogenesis being possible does not rule out the existence of god(s), or the possibility that a hypothetical god created life through supernatural means. That's not how evidence works. It just fills in gaps, like every other discovery humans have ever made.

On another note... if your trust in God would topple simply because scientists were able to use chemistry in a lab to create life, your belief is not a very good or strong one. The fact that Dan is still a Christian despite his understanding of the natural world says a lot about his faith. Why is yours so weak, Moon?

Since the existence of God or anything supernatural is belief and cannot be tested, discovering lab-based abiogenesis is not going to matter towards establishing or destroying that belief.

I think it says a lot about what many believers understand about science and logic.

 

[Brian2]

It already has, several times, Google it

Science has replaced the DNA of a cell with DNA that was designed in a computer and synthesized in a laboratory.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I guess we’ll never know.

Well you and I will no doubt not be around, but then those two centuries ago will not have known what we now take for granted. So why expect knowledge at your command?

Life has never been created in a lab from non living components. Did abiogenesis even occur 3.5 billion yrs ago? Maybe it took the hand of God to create life. I guess we'll never know.

Again, why expect knowledge to appear at your command. Unless you think you already have such, but harvested from some old book from the past and taken as gospel?

 

[Jimmy]

Why do you think this could not be done? Why non-organic? How do you make living things without carbon?

Components of life have already assembled themselves under the microscope, and combined into self contained, self replicating structures. This is simple chemistry that can be done in a high school lab.
@Christine also mentioned one of the several experiments with the creation of various types of artificial life. Are you familiar with these?

Again, what is it about life that makes it impossible to create in the lab? Is there something special about it; something magical?

"Goddidit" explains nothing. It posits no mechanism, only an agent. It asserts who, but not how.
Science investigates mechanism: how, not who. It explains, rather than attributes.

Q: What evidence underlies your assertion that goddidit, or that we're incapable of doing it ourselves?
False dilemma. The two aren't mutually exclusive, are they?
Scientists research because they're curious about how the world works, they don't worry about competing claims, and rarely give religion a second thought.
In fact, science welcomes competing claims, as long as they're accompanied by evidence. Religious claims, thus far, have been faith, not evidence based.

Oops meant organic

 

[Jimmy]

Well you and I will no doubt not be around, but then those two centuries ago will not have known what we now take for granted. So why expect knowledge at your command?



Again, why expect knowledge to appear at your command. Unless you think you already have such, but harvested from some old book from the past and taken as gospel?

Maybe abiogenesis happened 3.5 bill ago maybe not. Guess we'll never know

 

[Mock Turtle]

Maybe abiogenesis happened 3.5 bill ago maybe not. Guess we'll never know

But we might in the future - given the progress as to what science has uncovered in the last few centuries alone. So why expect science to have all the answers at this moment in time?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe abiogenesis happened 3.5 bill ago maybe not. Guess we'll never know

The evidence indicates that something happened way back when. We will likely never know the exact mechanism, but that doesn't prevent us from seeking proof of concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But we might in the future - given the progress as to what science has uncovered in the last few centuries alone. So why expect science to have all the answers at this moment in time?

And when or if we know all of the main questions of "how" are answered and it is rather clear that abiogenesis is the answer, there will still be other questions. We are unlikely to ever know the exact path that life followed, not because scientists cannot find the answers. In some cases they found too many answers. There is not just one answer to some problems, such as the problem of chirality, for scientists to say for sure what happened when.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe abiogenesis happened 3.5 bill ago maybe not. Guess we'll never know

Well, we do know. The only question is whether it occurred through known, chemical processes or by magic; chemistry vs God.
Science is making rapid strides in abiogenic mechanisms. Religion is making no progress -- inasmuch as there's very little mechanism to research in an assertion of magic.
Religion isn't even a research modality. It's more a defender of the status quo, promoter of 'revealed', untested doctrine, and bulwark against inquiry, research and knowledge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They refer to an intelligent designer for Abrahamic religions. There are a great many that use the term where it does not point to an intelligent designer.
@F1fan, which is why you and I are having this conversation.
If you are dreaming and you encounter a person, did you intelligently design that person? Were you aware that you were doing it?

OK. We've drifted pretty far afield You asked for evidence that "abiogenesis is a plausible explanation that is founded on facts, data, and a hypothesis that can work." I answered that the evidence is that "life is here, and the alternative to abiogenesis as the explanation for the first life on earth - an intelligent designer that created the universe and the life in it - cannot be called more plausible than a possibility that requires no intelligent designer, so abiogenesis is a plausible solution to the problem." Moreover, I claimed that "we see in every living thing every day how nonliving matter can be arranged into living cells without intelligent oversight. The laws of physics and chemistry are enough. All that's necessary is for the right ingredients to come into proximity, align themselves according to mass and charge distribution, and react. It's automatic." I don't know how we got to this point or what the discussion is about at this point.

Do you even know what "organic" means in chemistry?

I only learned recently from a television show why that word was chosen.

Abiogenesis explains a very important part of God. It explains how God created life. God cannot create life without it.

I've been seeing a lot of non-Abrahamic formulations of gods lately, and one thing I note is that the trend is to move to the atheistic view that contains no gods. The gods cited are no longer necessarily awake, nor do they always use magic. You could just drop these gods form the narratives, and nothing is lost or needs re-explaining. How about we just substitute the word nature for the word God in your comment? How about, 'Abiogenesis is how nature created life.' How is that comment improved by adding the word God to it?

I highly doubt abiogenesis will ever be able to be reproduced in a lab. I even doubt it took place 3.5 million years ago.

Yes, you've already said so, but not why you believe it, even though it's not a secret. Lacking an evidenced argument, that comment isn't any more useful to other Internet persona than saying who your favorite Beatle was without giving a reason for your opinion. The opinion only becomes interesting to others if you provide reasons for them to consider or offer alternative arguments if any.

Maybe abiogenesis happened 3.5 bill ago maybe not. Guess we'll never know

Abiogenesis definitely occurred sometime in the past. The question for you is whether an intelligent designer was involved or just blind, naturalistic processes. We don't need to prove that an intelligent designer was not involved. The answer would change nothing, anyway. Maybe the deist god intelligently designed the universe and set its parameters to unfold automatically yielding life and mind before floating off never to be heard from again. It wouldn't change a thing for scientists investigating abiogenesis.

In case you're unfamiliar, the argument is that whether you consider a god living and therefore the first life, or you don't consider disembodied mind living since it meets zero of the criteria for life and that therefore the first life was the life it created, either way, you've got life that didn't come from other life and needs some other explanation for its existence.

 

[Jimmy]

OK. We've drifted pretty far afield You asked for evidence that "abiogenesis is a plausible explanation that is founded on facts, data, and a hypothesis that can work." I answered that the evidence is that "life is here, and the alternative to abiogenesis as the explanation for the first life on earth - an intelligent designer that created the universe and the life in it - cannot be called more plausible than a possibility that requires no intelligent designer, so abiogenesis is a plausible solution to the problem." Moreover, I claimed that "we see in every living thing every day how nonliving matter can be arranged into living cells without intelligent oversight. The laws of physics and chemistry are enough. All that's necessary is for the right ingredients to come into proximity, align themselves according to mass and charge distribution, and react. It's automatic." I don't know how we got to this point or what the discussion is about at this point.


I only learned recently from a television show why that word was chosen.

I've been seeing a lot of non-Abrahamic formulations of gods lately, and one thing I note is that the trend is to move to the atheistic view that contains no gods. The gods cited are no longer necessarily awake, nor do they always use magic. You could just drop these gods form the narratives, and nothing is lost or needs re-explaining. How about we just substitute the word nature for the word God in your comment? How about, 'Abiogenesis is how nature created life.' How is that comment improved by adding the word God to it?

Yes, you've already said so, but not why you believe it, even though it's not a secret. Lacking an evidenced argument, that comment isn't any more useful to other Internet persona than saying who your favorite Beatle was without giving a reason for your opinion. The opinion only becomes interesting to others if you provide reasons for them to consider or offer alternative arguments if any.

Abiogenesis definitely occurred sometime in the past. The question for you is whether an intelligent designer was involved or just blind, naturalistic processes. We don't need to prove that an intelligent designer was not involved. The answer would change nothing, anyway. Maybe the deist god intelligently designed the universe and set its parameters to unfold automatically yielding life and mind before floating off never to be heard from again. It wouldn't change a thing for scientists investigating abiogenesis.

In case you're unfamiliar, the argument is that whether you consider a god living and therefore the first life, or you don't consider disembodied mind living since it meets zero of the criteria for life and that therefore the first life was the life it created, either way, you've got life that didn't come from other life and needs some other explanation for its existence.

God is beyond just living.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I've been seeing a lot of non-Abrahamic formulations of gods lately, and one thing I note is that the trend is to move to the atheistic view that contains no gods. The gods cited are no longer necessarily awake, nor do they always use magic. You could just drop these gods form the narratives, and nothing is lost or needs re-explaining. How about we just substitute the word nature for the word God in your comment? How about, 'Abiogenesis is how nature created life.' How is that comment improved by adding the word God to it?

As a pantheist and syntheist I believe God is what nature is becoming. I use God instead of nature when applicable when I refer to ultimate nature. Ultimate nature created the nature of the universe. And since it seems abiogenesis might be replicable with science and technology, something I also believe is God, I prefer using that word to describe the abiogenesis phenomena. But you're right. I could just say that the ultimate nature of The Omniverse created the nature of the Universe, which includes the ability for Earth to undergo both abiogenesis and evolution. But, since, they also apparently can recreate the same conditions in a lab, I tend to throw in the word God to describe both ultimate nature and ultimate humanity as well. As a pan-en-en-en-en-en-deist I believe in a deist-type God of ultimate nature and as a syntheist I believe God is also something humanity is striving towards. To lessen the confusion with all of this I throw in the blanket term and just call the entire thing God. I know that is going to confuse some people, and here I am explaining what God means to me, but at least I can use this space to clarify what I mean when I say that word. Plus, if you look at my signature, it says the same thing, the picture even containing a link to my Exaltist thread which I describe these concepts to full detail. I am trying to make people less ignorant to the way I understand and know God.

 

[ChristineM]

God is beyond just living.

I think it's brilliant how so many religious folks know precisely what their god is.