Abiogenesis

[Jimmy]

Yep. It's much more plausible that nothing existed before 1980.

Are you saying that life can not come from nonlife?

Haha right

 

[McBell]

Haha right

You did not answer the question.

Care to try again?

 

[Little Dragon]

My favorite offer of evidence for abiogenesis:

The theory of abiogenesis was proposed by Thomas Henry Huxley. The theory of abiogenesis states that the evolution of living forms from non-living matter is spontaneous. Example: Meat left open generates flies and maggots. This shows spontaneous generation.

More accurately, the hypothesis of abiogenesis states that living chemical systems, will arise from non living chemical systems.

The first hint this might be true was the famous Miller- Urey pre biotic Earth experiment , in which simple amino acids, self assembled, from water, nitrogen and methane molecules; using electric arcing, to simulate lightning.

 

[McBell]

More accurately, the hypothesis of abiogenesis states that living chemical systems, will arise from non living chemical systems.

The first hint this might be true was the famous Miller- Urey pre biotic Earth experiment , in which simple amino acids. self assembled, from water, nitrogen, methane and using electric arcing, to represent lightning.

I wonder if the thread is about to bombarded with a bunch of links about said experiment that says the exact opposite of what the poster posting them thinks they say?

I mean, that is what happened the last time said experiment was mentioned....

 

[Little Dragon]

I wonder if the thread is about to bombarded with a bunch of links about said experiment that says the exact opposite of what the poster posting them thinks they say?

I mean, that is what happened the last time said experiment was mentioned....

The experiment doesn't by itself, prove abiogenesis. That is all I could say. It just shows that organic molecules, the building blocks of RNA and DNA and all proteins, self assemble, without human or supernatural guidance, in nature. Amino acids have even been found in deep space, within molecular clouds, synthesized from water and methane and ammonia etc, these reactions energized by UV radiation.

 

[Jimmy]

You did not answer the question.

Care to try again?

I’m laughing at my blunder and saying you’re right. Look I even edited So stop jumping to conclusions

 

[We Never Know]

I wonder if the thread is about to bombarded with a bunch of links about said experiment that says the exact opposite of what the poster posting them thinks they say?

I mean, that is what happened the last time said experiment was mentioned....

Has the experiment been repeated since 1952?

 

[Little Dragon]

Has the experiment been repeated since 1952?

Yes, Repeatedly.

"The study shows that Miller–Urey experiments produce RNA nucleobases in discharges and laser-driven plasma impact simulations carried out in a simple prototype of reducing atmosphere containing ammonia and carbon monoxide. We carried out a self-standing description of chemistry relevant to hypothesis of abiotic synthesis of RNA nucleobases related to early-Earth chemical evolution under reducing conditions."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700010114

Apr 2017

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, Repeatedly.

"The study shows that Miller–Urey experiments produce RNA nucleobases in discharges and laser-driven plasma impact simulations carried out in a simple prototype of reducing atmosphere containing ammonia and carbon monoxide. We carried out a self-standing description of chemistry relevant to hypothesis of abiotic synthesis of RNA nucleobases related to early-Earth chemical evolution under reducing conditions."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700010114

I know what tge Miller–Urey experiment is.

I was just asking when is the list time it has been done again.

 

[Little Dragon]

I know what tge Miller–Urey experiment is.

I was just asking when is the list time it has been done again.

2017, in that particular study which you will note, mentions how newer experiments employ different methodologies. Not like the first of those type of experiments.

 

[Little Dragon]

I know what tge Miller–Urey experiment is.

Jolly good?

 

[osgart]

This has become an interesting thread for reasons other than intended.
Perhaps I should explain:
The OP was, I thought, a cute, if not too subtle, put down of the theory of abiogenesis. The quote is a favorite of mine because it seems so dumb. Which is of course my take on abiogenesis.

Well it's only logical that a natural process and open pathway to biological life must exist even if it happened with guidance or by way of the supernatural. After all organisms are made of natural elements and obey natural processes as we live.

Personally I think cellular biology is a type of sophisticated program, perhaps nanotechnology; like non living automatons that has intelligence and adapts to the environment naturally.

I believe in the soul but I consider abiogenesis sounds reasonable to me.

Why do you think it is dumb?

 

[WalterTrull]

I’m afraid my posts sometimes merely cast allusions. While I am more comfortable with the protection metaphor and simile allow, they often seem to result in confusion and terminal misunderstandings. My view of the cosmos is somewhat less than “mainstream” apparently.

Although I am a bit trepidatious about stating several of my premisses, they might be helpful to explain my “dumb” conclusion and either enable or preclude discussion. I kinda’ avoid “getting out there”.



My thought about life: It is, and we’re looking at it.

My thought about God: It is, and we’re looking at it.

My thought about Mind: It is and we’re looking at it.

My thought about multifarious beings: They aren’t. There is one.

My thought about substance other than mind: It isn’t.

My thought about “life on earth”: In earth is more meaningful.

My thought about “physical” laws: There are none. (There does seem to be quite a lot of “mustard seed”, however.)

My thought about time: It isn’t. Although, it is a useful analytical concept/tool for describing and guiding movement.

Although, I'm sure the above stated hypotheses will be considered "dumb" by many:

The hypothesis that the projection can create the projector seems “dumb”.



Ah well. There you have it. Judge me kindly.

 

[ChristineM]

Has the experiment been repeated since 1952?

Well i did it at school, does that count?

 

[McBell]

I’m laughing at my blunder and saying you’re right. Look I even edited So stop jumping to conclusions

so you do believe that life can not come from non life?

Is so, what life do you think the first life came from?

 

[Little Dragon]

My thought about “physical” laws: There are none.

Care to expand?

If physical laws did not exist, how would one calculate and make predictions about Mercury's orbit around the Sun?

Since that involves both Newtonian laws of gravity and special relativity theory, due to it's proximity to the huge mass of the Sun, and the resultant relativistic effects that has upon orbital periods of nearby masses.

Without those laws of physics, or mathematical models of reality, we would not know either how Mercury orbits the Sun, or how often in a given time frame. Among many other things.

 

[MikeF]

Although I am a bit trepidatious about stating several of my premisses, they might be helpful to explain my “dumb” conclusion and either enable or preclude discussion. I kinda’ avoid “getting out there”.

Have no fear, I don't think any of us will recognize you out at the shops.

 

[Jimmy]

so you do believe that life can not come from non life?

Is so, what life do you think the first life came from?

The world and existence appeared around 1980 in my belief

 

[McBell]

The world and existence appeared around 1980 in my belief

How does that statement address the question it is in reply to?

 

[McBell]

Have no fear, I don't think any of us will recognize you out at the shops.

Not so sure about that.
I mean that accent will be a dead giveaway...