Abiogenisis

[nPeace]

Show me evidence for God.

Make a life form without a controlled experiment.
Then when you do that, take your blender apart, and check it everyday, and see if it assembles, and starts working.

Sorry. I should really stick to organic stuff.

Scientists Assemble a Biological Clock in a Test Tube to Study How it Works
“Reconstituting a complicated biological process like the circadian clock from the ground up has really helped us learn how the clock proteins work together and will enable a much deeper understanding of circadian rhythms,” said Carrie Partch, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC Santa Cruz and a corresponding author of the study.

“These results were so surprising because it is common to have results in vitro that are somewhat inconsistent with what is observed in vivo. The interior of live cells is highly complex, in stark contrast to the much simpler conditions in vitro,” said Andy LiWang, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC Merced and a corresponding author of the paper.

Can you point out something that scientist did not have to do in a controlled environment, which actually happened... like abiogenesis?... is the question of the OP... basically.

...it is common to have results in vitro that are somewhat inconsistent with what is observed in vivo. The interior of live cells is highly complex, in stark contrast to the much simpler conditions in vitro​

Hard to believe how one can think it requires intelligent minds to build simple things, but highly complex things require no intelligent mind.
that baffles me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another dodge @We Never Know won the debate hands down

LOL!! No, but then you dodge far too often yourself. He lost the debate from the start. I explained why. Your inability to understand does not make him a winner.

When a person is rude angry and wrong he simply cannot win a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dodge

Yes, that was a dodge on his part. Just in case you are confused, a person does not get to just demand answers in a debate or discussion. In fact this was a discussion since he lost the debate part from the start.

 

[PureX]

Yes but this is you advancing a panspermia hypothesis of your own, now. As I say, almost nobody in the science community thinks this.

That simply is not true. I heard about this on a video special hosted by Niel Degrasse-Tyson emphasizing how much we DON'T KNOW about the universe. And in this instance, about the origins of life. And he was the one stating that this idea that life may have come to Earth from elsewhere has been gaining popularity among scientists of late.

No offense, but when it comes to a choice between your opinions and Neil, or wikipedia, I think I'm going with Neil on this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not providing evidence

The Miller Urey experiment is evidence.

You probably need to learn the concept too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That simply is not true. I heard about this on a video special hosted by Niel Degrasse-Tyson emphasizing how much we DON'T KNOW about the universe. And in this instance, about the origins of life. And he was the one stating that this idea that life may have come to Earth from elsewhere has been gaining popularity among scientists of late.

No offense, but when it comes to a choice between your opinions and Neil, or wikipedia, I think I'm going with Neil on this one.

Find legitimate sources advocating panspermia. There is even a good chance that you misunderstood what Tyson was saying.

@exchemist is right, at least to my knowledge practically no one advocates that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now @Kenny why do you think that the fact that the Miller Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis is funny?

 

[Kenny]

Now @Kenny why do you think that the fact that the Miller Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis is funny?

It was your statement that was funny but I'm sure you knew that

 

[Subduction Zone]

That simply is not true. I heard about this on a video special hosted by Niel Degrasse-Tyson emphasizing how much we DON'T KNOW about the universe. And in this instance, about the origins of life. And he was the one stating that this idea that life may have come to Earth from elsewhere has been gaining popularity among scientists of late.

No offense, but when it comes to a choice between your opinions and Neil, or wikipedia, I think I'm going with Neil on this one.

Yes. There is a lot that we do not know. But Wikipedia is probably far more reliable than what you think that Tyson said.

I have seen people conflate the fact that amino acids may have come from space with life coming from space. That would be as bad as saying "The Miller Urey experiment proves abiogenesis". The Miller Urey experiment is only one small piece of evidence for abiogenesis. It does not "prove it"

In fact the main reason the OP lost last night in his demands is that he kept demanding that I prove abiogenesis. The sciences provide evidence not proof.

 

[PureX]

Find legitimate sources advocating panspermia. There is even a good chance that you misunderstood what Tyson was saying.

@exchemist is right, at least to my knowledge practically no one advocates that.

It's very easy to understand. The vehicles exist that can carry life as we know it through space. There are life forms known to exist that could survive the trip. So the possibility that life traveled through space, to Earth, clearly exists. It's not difficult to understand. It's just difficult for you to admit that we have no idea how life originated, or even where. Because you are so invested in the pretense that your 'scietism' already has all the answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was your statement that was funny

Why? It was factually correct. There was nothing funny about it.

This is why you too would quickly lose a debate. You apparently do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[nPeace]

The Miller Urey experiment was not intended to produce life. It showed that amino acids could in principle be produced naturally from inorganic starting materials.

Why, we didn't have to go in a lab to know that intelligent agents create blueprints, which are a plan with specific instructions, for reaching an intended goal of particular design.

However, the lab experiments cement that fact.
To this day, scientist have not been able to produce amino acids out of the more than 100, with only left handed molecule - all 20, needed for life.
What Is the Origin of Life?
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.”

That says quite a lot about the involvement of an intelligent mind.

The evidence for abiogenesis is the evidence that once there was no life on the early earth. As there now is life, then, scientifically speaking, abiogenesis must have occurred.

God of the gaps?
Once there was no life on earth. Now there is life. Therefore an intelligent agent must have created life, because brains are more complex, and there were no brains on earth, but now there are, and we don't need brains really, to live. Plants don't.

Contrary to what you may read on poorly written internet sites, abiogenesis is not a theory. It's just a label for an event, or process. At one point there was no life. Later, there was. That change is called abiogenesis. We have no theory of abiogenesis as yet. We have some hypotheses for parts of the process and some evidence to support them.

Weak evidence, yes.
However, circumstantial evidence is not a conclusive, or verified position.
There is evidence of a creator. How strong, or weak that evidence is, does not verify it.
We believe, one or the other.

 

[George-ananda]

In my opinion, no proof can be presented for either side.

As for me I believe intelligent intent is involved in nature. Something like DNA developing by chance stretches credulity but I can't disprove it.

I am further convinced by those claiming clairvoyant insight into the nature of reality.

Abiogenesis is the concept compatible with the philosophy of materialism so it will have its die-hard proponents,

And there things sit at this time.

 

[PureX]

Yes. There is a lot that we do not know. But Wikipedia is probably far more reliable than what you think that Tyson said.

When you're only rebuttal is that I must have "misunderstood Niel Degrasse-Tyson", your argument has already failed. As all you have left to support it is a mindless insult.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's very easy to understand. The vehicles exist that can carry life as we know it through space. There are life forms known to exist that could survive the trip. So the possibility that life traveled through space, to Earth, clearly exists. It's not difficult to understand. It's just difficult for you to admit that we have no idea how life originated, or even where. Because you are so invested in the pretense that your 'scietism' already has all the answers.

No, I said find a valid source that supports your claim. And you of course are wrong. I have repeatedly seen you call any science that is beyond you scientism.

Support your claim of other scientists supporting panspermia. I doubt if Neil supports it...Why make a claim and then refuse to support it?

 

[Jose Fly]

It seems to me this thread is a lengthy exhibition of black/white, binary thinking, where abiogenesis is either "scientifically proven" or it's merely a belief taken on faith. The possibility of gray areas between those two extremes is apparently beyond the ability of some folks to grasp.

Pretty fascinating to watch, really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why, we didn't have to go in a lab to know that intelligent agents create blueprints, which are a plan with specific instructions, for reaching an intended goal of particular design.

However, the lab experiments cement that fact.
To this day, scientist have not been able to produce amino acids out of the more than 100, with only left handed molecule - all 20, needed for life.
What Is the Origin of Life?
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.”

That says quite a lot about the involvement of an intelligent mind.


God of the gaps?
Once there was no life on earth. Now there is life. Therefore an intelligent agent must have created life, because brains are more complex, and there were no brains on earth, but now there are, and we don't need brains really, to live. Plants don't.


Weak evidence, yes.
However, circumstantial evidence is not a conclusive, or verified position.
There is evidence of a creator. How strong, or weak that evidence is, does not verify it.
We believe, one or the other.

I do believe that there is more than one possible solution to the chirality problem.

 

[nPeace]

In a way you are right. But then that is the working assumption of science. It is called methodological naturalism and is fundamental to science. Science looks for explanations of nature in nature itself, rather than invoking supernatural influence.

So science looks for natural means by which inorganic starting materials could have led to living organisms, just as it looks for natural explanations of earthquakes, or why the stars shine, or why iron rusts.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Scientists look for natural explanations.
So, is it fair to say, scientists, are not necessarily seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, but presupposing that the evidence must lead to natural explanations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me this thread is a lengthy exhibition of black/white, binary thinking, where abiogenesis is either "scientifically proven" or it's merely a belief taken on faith. The possibility of gray areas between those two extremes is apparently beyond the ability of some folks to grasp.

Pretty fascinating to watch, really.

I have seen that too. The demands that it be replicated in a lab are always a hoot.

 

[nPeace]

Now you're catching on. But the mice thingi has absolutely no evidence except it's mention by people who do not believe it exists. God otoh has plenty of evidence, just not evidence that science can use.
So are you saying that it is impossible that God gave life because science cannot see or analyse spirit? That doesn't make sense. It might make sense if you think that only science can tell us about the world, but we know that is not true, so it does not make sense.

It does not make sense either way, because merely thinking something, does not make it true.
So, even if he thinks that "only science can tell us about the world", that does not make it true.

That's an ideology, or philosophy.
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.