This doesn’t look good for support of the abiogenesis hypothesis

[Yerda]

OK, forget dark matter. The fact that we haven’t observed any atoms forming anywhere doesn’t support the abiogenesis hypothesis either.

Abiogenesis is the idea that living matter arose from non-living matter. There's lots of non-living matter in existence, agreed?

 

[Jimmy]

Abiogenesis is the idea that living matter arose from non-living matter. There's lots of non-living matter in existence, agreed?

Sure but shouldn’t we be able to observe new atoms forming or dying? But if you’re the type that believes Atoms were formed during the Big Bang, then this question doesn’t pertain to you.

 

[Yerda]

Sure but shouldn’t we be able to observe new atoms forming or dying? But if you’re the type that believes Atoms were formed during the Big Bang, then this question doesn’t pertain to you.

We do see new atoms forming all the time through chemical reactions.

Whatever I, or you, believe about the formation of atoms - we can agree that there are loads of them. Yes?

Abiogenesis is the position that there was non-living matter and the processes that non-living systems undergo led to living systems.

 

[Jimmy]

We do see new atoms forming all the time through chemical reactions.

Whatever I, or you, believe about the formation of atoms - we can agree that there are loads of them. Yes?

Abiogenesis is the position that there was non-living matter and the processes that non-living systems undergo led to living systems.

ATom’s with a higher atomic number form during nuclear fusion but not atoms from scratch

 

[sayak83]

OK, forget dark matter. The fact that we haven’t observed any atoms forming anywhere doesn’t support the abiogenesis hypothesis either.

This is confusing. We can observe the formation of new atoms from subatomic particles. What do you think fusion is?

 

[Jimmy]

This is confusing. We can observe the formation of new atoms from subatomic particles. What do you think fusion is?

ATom’s with a higher atomic number form during nuclear fusion but not atoms from scratch

 

[sayak83]

ATom’s with a higher atomic number form during nuclear fusion but not atoms from scratch

Subatomic particles formed at the time of the Big Bang and cannot be further created or destroyed without having extremely high energies that are no longer there in the current universe.
However what has this to do with abiogenesis? Since we routinely observe subatomic particles coming together to form atoms and atoms coming together to form molecules....hence the premise of abiogenesis that atoms came together in early earth to create the molecules of life which then self-organised in molecular complexes that were the first cell....has nothing nonphysical about it.

 

[Jimmy]

Subatomic particles formed at the time of the Big Bang and cannot be further created or destroyed without having extremely high energies that are no longer there in the current universe.
However what has this to do with abiogenesis? Since we routinely observe subatomic particles coming together to form atoms and atoms coming together to form molecules....hence the premise of abiogenesis that atoms came together in early earth to create the molecules of life which then self-organised in molecular complexes that were the first cell....has nothing nonphysical about it.

Well, it seems that you believe that subatomic particles were formed during the Big Bang. This thread is more along the lines of these subatomic particles always existing or existing way before the Big Bang. Maybe I should clarify that in my OP.

So if these subatomic particles have been around for a really long time, I was just curious as to why we can’t witness any of them decaying at this point. But having made these threads, I began to think more about it, and it dawned on me that all matter everywhere would end at the same exact time if it were going to happen.

Having said all that I do find it strange that subatomic particles were created in the blink of an eye while abiogenesis happened over millions, if not hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Jimmy]

I recognize now that this thread is convoluted, but I did learn from it and it’s dawned on me that if all matter were to decay, it would have to happen at the same exact time. This thread is kind of tied in and related to a couple other threads I made At the same time. So I’m glad I made this thread.

 

[Jimmy]

My original op was based on the idea that atoms didnt exist before abiogenesis which is a bit wonky. lol. Maybe I should’ve clarified that in my original OP.

 

[F1fan]

Wouldn’t the yet to be discovered subatomic particles that make up dark matter eventually join together to form new atoms? The fact that this hasn’t been scientifically observed doesn’t look good for support of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

This wouldn't just affect abiogenesis. It would affect all matter including the elements that make up gas clouds, stars, planets, etc. Nothing could form if your guess was correct. In essence you assume this dark matter doesn't affect the hydrogen and helium atoms, and how they formed gas clouds and eventually gravity caused new elements to form, which led to stars forming and even heavier elements forming, and eventually planets forming, etc. Dark matter doesn't affect amino acids once they exist, apparently, only the conversion of inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals (abiogenesis). Is that your claim?

 

[sayak83]

Well, it seems that you believe that subatomic particles were formed during the Big Bang. This thread is more along the lines of these subatomic particles always existing or existing way before the Big Bang. Maybe I should clarify that in my OP.

So if these subatomic particles have been around for a really long time, I was just curious as to why we can’t witness any of them decaying at this point. But having made these threads, I began to think more about it, and it dawned on me that all matter everywhere would end at the same exact time if it were going to happen.

Having said all that I do find it strange that subatomic particles were created in the blink of an eye while abiogenesis happened over millions, if not hundreds of millions of years.

Some reactions are slow and some are fast. Usually reactions occuring at low temperatures are much much slower than at high temperatures as amount of energy available decreases. Early universe had temperatures in millions of degrees, while reactions on earth happen at 0 - 200 C at most. That is why.

 

[Jimmy]

This wouldn't just affect abiogenesis. It would affect all matter including the elements that make up gas clouds, stars, planets, etc. Nothing could form if your guess was correct. In essence you assume this dark matter doesn't affect the hydrogen and helium atoms, and how they formed gas clouds and eventually gravity caused new elements to form, which led to stars forming and even heavier elements forming, and eventually planets forming, etc. Dark matter doesn't affect amino acids once they exist, apparently, only the conversion of inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals (abiogenesis). Is that your claim?

See post #50

 

[Jimmy]

Some reactions are slow and some are fast. Usually reactions occuring at low temperatures are much much slower than at high temperatures as amount of energy available decreases. Early universe had temperatures in millions of degrees, while reactions on earth happen at 0 - 200 C at most. That is why.

700 F. Thermal vents

 

[Jimmy]

Some reactions are slow and some are fast. Usually reactions occuring at low temperatures are much much slower than at high temperatures as amount of energy available decreases. Early universe had temperatures in millions of degrees, while reactions on earth happen at 0 - 200 C at most. That is why.

Makes sense. Scientifically speaking I think protons and electrons were around before the Big Bang though. Wonder how they formed according to science.

 

[F1fan]

See post #50

Except atoms existed since the Big Bang.

 

[sayak83]

Makes sense. Scientifically speaking I think protons and electrons were around before the Big Bang though. Wonder how they formed according to science.

Current scientific understanding is that all subatomic particles were formed after Big Bang.

 

[Jimmy]

Except atoms existed since the Big Bang.

Right, if you buy the BB even took place.

 

[Jimmy]

Current scientific understanding is that all subatomic particles were formed after Big Bang.

Right

 

[Heyo]

We do not have to observe the formation of atoms to know that atoms are there.
We do not have to observe the formation of atoms to hypothesize how they were formed.

Yep.

For all we know atoms have always existed...

Nope. Look up Baryogenesis - Wikipedia.