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

[Heyo]

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

You may want to look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia.

 

[GoodAttention]

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.

Subatomic particles make up atoms, which vary in mass depending on composition of protons and neutrons.

Most of the “heavier” elements decay to “lighter” ones, usually ending up as a stable iron isotope. However lead is the heaviest element with a stable isotope.

Stable isotopes can be defined as having a half life as long as the age of the universe, meaning no decay has been observed.

Abiogenesis is a chance game, namely dependent on time and presence of the required substances for cellular life, one being phospholipids.

How a phosphate ion joined itself to a lipid could have been due to ocean vents, reacting CO2 to hydrogen gas via methanation, then reducing to lipids.

The phospholipids would rise and collect as a layer on the ocean surface. I suspect this was how individual cells eventually formed, collecting proteins and other compounds along the way.

The entire process would have been slow but steady, but reacting and building up to the moment where a “product” is produced.

This product was effectively one that could create an equal version of itself.

It would be like putting milk, eggs, sugar, water, flour etc in a bowl, which was able to mix and organise itself into a million tiny cupcakes.

The story continues, but remains a chance game.

 

[F1fan]

Right, if you buy the BB even took place.

It's not a matter (pun intended) of buying anything. It's a matter of we non-experts deferring to what experts in the various sciences report. There are many crackpot ideas like your from non-experts and they aren't worth the digital codes that appear on my computer screen. How and why so many want to reject exprtise in the sciences and believe in nonsense is troubling. It illustrates the failure of schools to teach critical thinking skill.

What we well educated don't buy is your nonsense. Have you noticed that those who reject your claims are better educated than you?

 

[Jimmy]

It's not a matter (pun intended) of buying anything. It's a matter of we non-experts deferring to what experts in the various sciences report. There are many crackpot ideas like your from non-experts and they aren't worth the digital codes that appear on my computer screen. How and why so many want to reject exprtise in the sciences and believe in nonsense is troubling. It illustrates the failure of schools to teach critical thinking skill.

What we well educated don't buy is your nonsense. Have you noticed that those who reject your claims are better educated than you?

Scientifically speaking, I support the Big Bang theory and how it explains the origin of the universe but I also like to think of other scenarios.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

That makes absolutely zero sense though. The environments where abiogenesis could have occurred and the materials it would have acted on would all be made of atoms. Pretty much any physical, chemical or biological process requires atoms to happen, including all the ones that happened long before there was any life (regardless of how it came to be).

 

[Jimmy]

That makes absolutely zero sense though. The environments where abiogenesis could have occurred and the materials it would have acted on would all be made of atoms. Pretty much any physical, chemical or biological process requires atoms to happen, including all the ones that happened long before there was any life (regardless of how it came to be).

Right that’s why I called it wonky. I didn’t quite think about this thread before I made it. I was just kind of rolling with ideas.

 

[Jimmy]

I just thought that we should be able to witness new atoms forming from scratch. That’s what this thread was about. And obviously with a notion like that one wouldn’t support the Big Bang theory.

 

[Jimmy]

I edited my original OP. It’s not as wonky. Haha

 

[Twilight Hue]

So the abiogenesis hypothesis hangs on another hypothesis which is atoms have always existed. Seems like a pretty shaky explanation of life and existence.

If you regard atoms in the Greek vernacular of the term then it shouldn't affect abiogenesis in the least.

 

[Alien826]

Excuse me for not reading through all of this.

I have a feeling that the problem arises from The OP not understanding the difference between atoms and molecules. Atoms form the elements of the periodic table, starting with hydrogen, the most basic (H). These were all formed long ago in the early universe. (I have a feeling that's not strictly true, never mind). Once you have atoms, say hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) they can combine to form molecules. Two Hs and one O make water (H2O). Water can be formed from hydrogen and oxygen quite easily, it happens all the time. The reverse can also happen, a molecule of water can be split in two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

OK, we can assume lots of atoms and molecules of many kinds lying around on the early Earth. Now let's add another kind of atom, carbon (C). These three combine in an amazing number of ways to form the components (molecules) of living matter (and other stuff). There's no question of new atoms forming. Atoms simply combine to form various molecules.

The question of abiogenesis arises at this point. Molecules that we call "life" exhibit various features that non-life molecules do not. For example, the ability to reproduce themselves. Abiogenesis addresses the question of how did the "non-life" molecules change to "life" molecules.

 

[Jimmy]

Excuse me for not reading through all of this.

I have a feeling that the problem arises from The OP not understanding the difference between atoms and molecules. Atoms form the elements of the periodic table, starting with hydrogen, the most basic (H). These were all formed long ago in the early universe. (I have a feeling that's not strictly true, never mind). Once you have atoms, say hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) they can combine to form molecules. Two Hs and one O make water (H2O). Water can be formed from hydrogen and oxygen quite easily, it happens all the time. The reverse can also happen, a molecule of water can be split in two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

OK, we can assume lots of atoms and molecules of many kinds lying around on the early Earth. Now let's add another kind of atom, carbon (C). These three combine in an amazing number of ways to form the components (molecules) of living matter (and other stuff). There's no question of new atoms forming. Atoms simply combine to form various molecules.

The question of abiogenesis arises at this point. Molecules that we call "life" exhibit various features that non-life molecules do not. For example, the ability to reproduce themselves. Abiogenesis addresses the question of how did the "non-life" molecules change to "life" molecules.

I know the difference. I edited OP. You should’ve read it

 

[Alien826]

I know the difference. I edited OP. You should’ve read it

Great. Do you now understand that no new atoms are involved in abiogenesis?

 

[Jimmy]

Great. Do you now understand that no new atoms are involved in abiogenesis?

I’ve always known that

 

[Heyo]

I just thought that we should be able to witness new atoms forming from scratch. That’s what this thread was about. And obviously with a notion like that one wouldn’t support the Big Bang theory.

We do see new atoms forming. Well, scientists at CERN can detect them when they smash existing atomic cores against another. But the LHC is many orders of magnitude away from the energy levels that existed minutes after the initial expansion, so we can only infer how the first mesons and baryons formed.

 

[HonestJoe]

I know the difference. I edited OP. You should’ve read it

I'd respectfully suggest you stop digging, you're not getting anywhere with this.