Abiogenisis

[We Never Know]

Yet it is the only viable explantion for the rise of life. There is no other option in the evidence.

Claiming an experiment that didn't create life shows how life formed is not science.

Prove me wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

Of course it can't be proven, in the scientific sense. Neither can the germ theory of heliocentrism, but the evidence for all three is overwhelming.

So.... Is there an alternative "theory," with stronger, more voluminous, or more consilient evidence, that you support?

If not abiogenesis, how?

How life became life has never been shown to me.
Be it abiogenisis or creation, neither have been shown to be correct to me. I'm good with that, that being we don't know.

 

[F1fan]

Claiming an experiment that didn't create life shows how life formed is not science.

Prove me wrong.

I suggest you read Mary Shelly's most famous book, Frankenstein. That will will give you the science you're looking for.

 

[We Never Know]

I suggest you read Mary Shelly's most famous book, Frankenstein. That will will give you the science you're looking for.

I suggest you tell me whether we know how life became life.

I've read books on gods and superman, neither convinved me they are true

 

[Soandso]

I love science. Its how we move forward. But claiming an experiment that didn't create life shows how life formed is not science.

That's not what the goal of the experiment was, as others here have said. A hypothesis was stated, it was tested, and the test was shown to be successful - that is exactly how science works

You are inserting your own idea of what the intended goal of the experiment was over what the scientists themselves wanted to try to test with it

 

[F1fan]

I suggest you tell me whether we know how life became life.

I've read books on gods and superman, neither convinved me they are true

Fantasy seems to be where your head it at. You have access to the same experts in science we do. If they don't tell you what you want to hear, that's your problem.

 

[Nimos]

Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!

Currently, there is no hard proof of this, but they are working on it. And there is evidence or what one could call a plausible explanation of how it could occur. However we are not there yet.

The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can't copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

"This is a very important paper," says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. "It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting."

The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA's four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life's building blocks simultaneously.

 

[We Never Know]

Currently, there is no hard proof of this, but they are working on it. And there is evidence or what one could call a plausible explanation of how it could occur. However we are not there yet.

The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can't copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

"This is a very important paper," says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. "It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting."

The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA's four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life's building blocks simultaneously.

I have already stated there are maybe's could be's and what ifs.

 

[Nimos]

I have already stated there are maybe's could be's and what ifs.

Yes, but we haven't figured it out yet, you asked if there were any evidence for it, and there is some. But they are not conclusive yet but are suggesting that it could be plausible at least. That was what you were asking for right? Evidence?

 

[We Never Know]

Currently, there is no hard proof of this, but they are working on it. And there is evidence or what one could call a plausible explanation of how it could occur. However we are not there yet.

The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can't copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

"This is a very important paper," says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. "It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting."

The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA's four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life's building blocks simultaneously.

Your RNA and DNA are coded with intructions. Its how you became you.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, but we haven't figured it out yet, you asked if there were any evidence for it, and there is some. But they are not conclusive yet but are suggesting that it could be plausible at least. That was what you were asking for right? Evidence?

"but we haven't figured it out yet"

That's my point. To claim otherwise isn't science.

 

[Nimos]

Your RNA and DNA are coded with intructions. Its how you became you.

Yes, but RNA and DNA from a scientific point of view didn't come into existence out of the blue, they would have needed to evolve, the study tries to figure out how that could be possible and that requires certain building blocks, and they have been able to show how some of these could have been made naturally.

 

[JDMS]

@We Never Know you seem quite incensed, and as someone looking at this thread 2 pages in, I'm struggling to understand what you want from these people. Evidence, STRONG evidence, or proof?

You seem angry that these users are providing less evidence than you'd like, and then you are assuming that they think that evidence "proves" abiogenesis. Most users here, if not all (I haven't read the other thread) are not claiming that they know abiogenesis is how life came to be. No one is claiming it's proven.

Step back and try to actually read what people are telling you. Try to remove your passionate sunglasses and actually take it in.

 

[Nimos]

"but we haven't figured it out yet"

That's my point. To claim otherwise isn't science.

Of course, it is. Scientists are wrong about many things. Those studying dark matter and dark energy are doing science despite not being able to demonstrate it yet and might be totally wrong. The same goes with String theory.

They are not claiming to know either, they are working on it. And the first thing I wrote to you, was that there was no prove of it. But that they are trying to figure it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more time from the OP... "Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened or admit defeat. Your choice.

Oh, you want evidence for that.

A rock falling in vat with very sensitive temperature controls measuring devices provides evidence of that along with your ability to breathe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@We Never Know you seem quite incensed, and as someone looking at this thread 2 pages in, I'm struggling to understand what you want from these people. Evidence, STRONG evidence, or proof?

You seem angry that these users are providing less evidence than you'd like, and then you are assuming that they think that evidence "proves" abiogenesis. Most users here, if not all (I haven't read the other thread) are not claiming that they know abiogenesis is how life came to be. No one is claiming it's proven.

Step back and try to actually read what people are telling you. Try to remove your passionate sunglasses and actually take it in.

I do not know why he gets so angry at times.

 

[We Never Know]

@We Never Know you seem quite incensed, and as someone looking at this thread 2 pages in, I'm struggling to understand what you want from these people. Evidence, STRONG evidence, or proof?

You seem angry that these users are providing less evidence than you'd like, and then you are assuming that they think that evidence "proves" abiogenesis. Most users here, if not all (I haven't read the other thread) are not claiming that they know abiogenesis is how life came to be. No one is claiming it's proven.

Step back and try to actually read what people are telling you. Try to remove your passionate sunglasses and actually take it in.

Its quite simple .. Show me life arose through abiogenisis or creation.

Neither can be shown leaving both null and void.

 

[We Never Know]

I do not know why he gets so angry at times.

This is your claim. Support it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

"but we haven't figured it out yet"

That's my point. To claim otherwise isn't science.

That is s a tamed down version of your earlier claim that led to this, but that is still wrong because it is misleading. You seem to want scientists to say that they have no clue. That they have no evidence. That is not the case. There are still unanswered problems in abiogenesis, but you seem to want to deny even the answered questions.

Once more, there is ample evidence for abiogenesis. There is just not enough to call it a theory yet.

 

[We Never Know]

That is s a tamed down version of your earlier claim that led to this, but that is still wrong because it is misleading. You seem to want scientists to say that they have no clue. That they have no evidence. That is not the case. There are still unanswered problems in abiogenesis, but you seem to want to deny even the answered questions.

Once more, there is ample evidence for abiogenesis. There is just not enough to call it a theory yet.

Whoa!! You want others to prove a god shouldn't you prove an alternative? Or are they to take your maybe's and could be's