Thread: Abiogenesis A Realistic Scenario?

Also Ne-Yo: Are you aware that Abiogenesis is comprised of several different hypotheses?

Because I didn't see you mention one.

All you did was attack the idea that Life came from nonliving material (Remeber viruses technically aren't alive, and neither are prions but both reproduce). That idea is the only possible idea.

Abiogenesis:

Nonlife -> Life

"Intelligent Design"

??? -> Life -> Life

Occam's Razor:

"Piss off, ID."

Jesus God and the Holy Fuckin Ghost, Neyo has puzzled out the making of the world and universe and all the rest. We can all live in peace now.

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' you moron.

That's like laughing at me because I'm one of the cult of 'gravityists'.

Like others have said... uh, what is your argument apart from 'OMG IT CANT BE WRITE BCUZ GOD DID IT OBV PS GOD I LUV U HEVEN PLZ' ?

For a start, the RNA world hypothesis may be false. This doesn't mean that abiogenesis is impossible considering there are actually many other HYPOTHESES (look that word up, it's one you clearly need to add to your limited vocabluary) about the subject.

Natural selection is not 'wrong' because we don't understand where life came from; Darwin made his theory to explain changes in existing populations, and it works completely, and there is also huge masses of evidence for it to the extend that denying it is quite impossible.

Feel free to theorise that God created the universe with the right conditions so that evolution would occur and eventually create man in his image, but stop denying what is clearly true. God's supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent and when creating the universe he was in fact creating the whole of the 4 main dimensions, by which I mean due to determinism God must have instantaneously created the whole universe and everything that would ever happen in it, so I don't see what the problem is with that.

Anyway, the Miller Urey experiment quite clearly showed that the major organic compounds all self assembled in an ancient Earth atmosphere when provided with energy. From there on it's cloudy and a work in progress, but any stupid figure you come up with for the probability of an RNA molecule randomly assembling itself will always be completely overwhelmed by the fact that there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the visible universe alone and these have existed for about 10 billion years. That pretty much counters any improbability.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

WRONG.

- Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that Organic matter can create chemicals and compounds that eventually created life.
- Abiogenesis does not affect evolution. Why? Because evolution happens to life and has been observed.
- Technically speaking, abiogenesis is the ONLY possible explanation, because life is incredibly RARE in the universe, so it has to come from other things.

You wouldn't argue that Uranium can't be created through natural means of nuclei packing, would you? No, unless you are an idiot.

See this is the problem I have with evolutionist why are you people always trying to pick apart important references to appear more feasible? Just state what’s real and stop trying to cut corners.

First - Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life on earth emerged from inanimate and inorganic molecules.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Why did you leave out inanimate Seismosaur?

Secondly - Abiogenesis does affect evolution because if there is a regression expressed in evolution this regression will ultimately lead you to Abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

However, the mechanics of Abiogenesis, etc. are still being researched and improved on.

It's clearly not a scientific fact so that goes back to my question why do you believe in this hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Most recent data shows that life probably formed near hot ocean vents, where lots of organic material was ejected into the ocean, and since the vents are under water so much, there is less disturbance of the chemicals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abio...ginoflife.html

Asserting that "Abiogenesis is so clearly false" just makes look like more of an incompetant idiot; especially since you have no support for this assertion anywhere in your posts. (Read: Learn how to propose an idea)

Hot ocean vents:

First of all submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them where in the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful.

Also Talk origin is garbage, especially considering they only speak of molecules as though they are already animate when referencing abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I must have missed the part where you demonstrated this. "So clearly" is clearly misleading.

I missed the point where it’s been demonstrated as fact.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I agree with skysaw on this, on what are you basing this conclusion on? Citation is needed on that part.

Regardless who you agree with you still have a question to address, “Do you believe in Abiogenesis based off of successful scientific experimentation?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Also Ne-Yo: Are you aware that Abiogenesis is comprised of several different hypotheses?

Because I didn't see you mention one.

All you did was attack the idea that Life came from nonliving material (Remeber viruses technically aren't alive, and neither are prions but both reproduce). That idea is the only possible idea.

Abiogenesis:

Nonlife -> Life

"Intelligent Design"

??? -> Life -> Life

Occam's Razor:

"Piss off, ID."

I think it's obvious that I'm referring to all variations of Abiogenesis and all stated hypothesis, simple as that.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' you moron.

That's like laughing at me because I'm one of the cult of 'gravityists'.

Like others have said... uh, what is your argument apart from 'OMG IT CANT BE WRITE BCUZ GOD DID IT OBV PS GOD I LUV U HEVEN PLZ' ?

For a start, the RNA world hypothesis may be false. This doesn't mean that abiogenesis is impossible considering there are actually many other HYPOTHESES (look that word up, it's one you clearly need to add to your limited vocabluary) about the subject.

Natural selection is not 'wrong' because we don't understand where life came from; Darwin made his theory to explain changes in existing populations, and it works completely, and there is also huge masses of evidence for it to the extend that denying it is quite impossible.

Feel free to theorise that God created the universe with the right conditions so that evolution would occur and eventually create man in his image, but stop denying what is clearly true. God's supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent and when creating the universe he was in fact creating the whole of the 4 main dimensions, by which I mean due to determinism God must have instantaneously created the whole universe and everything that would ever happen in it, so I don't see what the problem is with that.

Anyway, the Miller Urey experiment quite clearly showed that the major organic compounds all self assembled in an ancient Earth atmosphere when provided with energy. From there on it's cloudy and a work in progress, but any stupid figure you come up with for the probability of an RNA molecule randomly assembling itself will always be completely overwhelmed by the fact that there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the visible universe alone and these have existed for about 10 billion years. That pretty much counters any improbability.

Okay so you’re in the same boat as all other “Evolutionist” You and I both know that all experimentation conducted by Miller has come up with unfavorable results, so are your beliefs based off Successful scientific experimentations?

Also what's the Heven PLZ part supposed to mean?

I knew someone would throw it out.

Hey Bluefinger be honest does the bolded text apply?

Originally Posted by Xei

Anyway, the Miller Urey experiment quite clearly showed that the major organic compounds all self assembled in an ancient Earth atmosphere when provided with energy. From there on it's cloudy and a work in progress, but any stupid figure you come up with for the probability of an RNA molecule randomly assembling itself will always be completely overwhelmed by the fact that there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the visible universe alone and these have existed for about 10 billion years. That pretty much counters any improbability.

In otherwords are you in support of these factors regarding probabilities?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I knew someone would throw it out.

Hey Bluefinger be honest does the bolded text apply?

In otherwords are you in support of these factors regarding probabilities?

It is a counterpoint to your use of probabilities. Anthropic Principle and all...

Probabilities don't count.

If I roll a die with 34x10^{5,000,000,000,000} sides and get a six the probability is staggering, and by your logic impossible.

But I did, and so therefore probablities really don't have much meaning.

So really your argument is much like this:

Me: "I rolled a six!"
You: "What? no, that's impossible! The probabilit is just too low,"
Me: "Er, but I rolled a six. See?"
You: "No, no. The die must simpy fixed to roll six. You didn't roll it"

Life doesn't exist. Hence, abiogenesis must be true.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Because they weren't all inanimate...? Prions are not alive, yet animate. Neither are Viruses and they are animate too.

Saying they weren't all inanimate and producing proof regarding which ones were are two different things, thus your statement is invalid unless you can show me which molecules were animate in creating life.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Hate to break it to you... but essentially, we are nothing but self-replicating chemicals.

That has no reference towards the statement I made against Talk Origins.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What? Spontaneous generation or Abiogenesis?

So are you saying Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis are two different concepts? LOL.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Not just from molecular biology, there's also geology to confirm the necessary conditions in the Earth's past for Abiogenesis to occur. I have more reason to accept Abiogenesis than magic pixies or a deities being the cause of all life.

There is also geology evidence that confirms otherwise regarding the Condition of Earth. You mean you have more reason to "Believe" in Abiogenesis because that's all it is, is a belief not based off any facts you're believing something someone else has inserted could be the possibility of the origin of life with no evidence to back the claim. In the end it's just this.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Unfavourable results? Citation is needed again. Damn, Ne-yo, what are you basing these conclusions on?

What are you basing conclusions on that Millers experiements were successful? You're asking for citations regarding wether his experiments were unsuccessful? However you and I both know that Millers experiments haven't displayed proof of anything.

No you fucking moron.

Abiogenesis is the ONLY way life could have come about. For reasons I cleared up earlier.

Period.

Saying they weren't all inanimate and producing proof regarding which ones were are two different things, thus your statement is invalid unless you can show me which molecules were animate in creating life.

Fucking shit.

I gave you two damn examples of animate, nonliving things.

Do you not know what a fucking prion is?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That has no reference towards the statement I made against Talk Origins.

Actually, taking into consideration the wording of your statement, you implied that there is a distinction between living and non-living with regards to the source you were referring to, of which you inferred they were presenting whatever argument wrongly. I simply provided a counterpoint against your statement, at least, what you were insinuating.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So are you saying Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis are two different concepts? LOL.

Actually, yes, they are two different concepts. Both deal with two different scenarios and circumstances, as spontaneous generation deals with food preservation and not the origins of life.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There is also geology evidence that confirms otherwise regarding the Condition of Earth. You mean you have more reason to "Believe" in Abiogenesis because that's all it is, is a belief not based off any facts you're believing something someone else has inserted could be the possibility of the origin of life with no evidence to back the claim. In the end it's just this.

Belief doesn't come into this in the sense you are trying to present it. I said accept not believe, as we find more evidence for things, it is not about believing it to be true, but accepting it as a verifiable fact. As far as religion is concerned (yay, I do pics too!):

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What are you basing conclusions on that Millers experiements were successful? You're asking for citations regarding wether his experiments were unsuccessful? However you and I both know that Millers experiments haven't displayed proof of anything.

What's this? Claiming that I know what you are going on about with regards to the Miller Experiments being unsuccessful? Wishful thinking, happening right in that post of yours.

Still no citation from you either way.

First - Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life on earth emerged from inanimate and inorganic molecules.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Why did you leave out inanimate Seismosaur?

Because they weren't all inanimate...? Prions are not alive, yet animate. Neither are Viruses and they are animate too.

Secondly - Abiogenesis does affect evolution because if there is a regression expressed in evolution this regression will ultimately lead you to Abiogenesis.

No... It doesn't.

Have you ever read ANYTHING on evolution? Do you get ALL of your information from Creationism Magazine or something?

Hot ocean vents:

First of all submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them where in the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful.

Also Talk origin is garbage, especially considering they only speak of molecules as though they are already animate when referencing abiogenesis.

Instead of spouting word salad and ignorant statemnts, why don't you actually read the article?

Excluding an entire website because it doesn't agree with your own personal beliefs is NOT SCIENTIFIC and INVALIDATES EVERYTHING you say.

Especially when said site includes a huge amount of references.

I missed the point where it’s been demonstrated as fact.

Seriously. Do you sniff glue?

Abiogenesis isn't a single idea.

I think it's obvious that I'm referring to all variations of Abiogenesis and all stated hypothesis, simple as that.

Way to ignore your own logical fallacy:

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

All you did was attack the idea that Life came from nonliving material (Remeber viruses technically aren't alive, and neither are prions but both reproduce). That idea is the only possible idea.

Abiogenesis:

Nonlife -> Life

"Intelligent Design"

??? -> Life -> Life

Occam's Razor:

"Piss off, ID."

Okay so you’re in the same boat as all other “Evolutionist” You and I both know that all experimentation conducted by Miller has come up with unfavorable results, so are your beliefs based off Successful scientific experimentations?

More unsubstantiated assertions.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Also Talk origin is garbage, especially considering they only speak of molecules as though they are already animate when referencing abiogenesis.

Hate to break it to you... but essentially, we are nothing but self-replicating chemicals.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I missed the point where it’s been demonstrated as fact.

What? Spontaneous generation or Abiogenesis?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Regardless who you agree with you still have a question to address, “Do you believe in Abiogenesis based off of successful scientific experimentation?

Not just from molecular biology, there's also geology to confirm the necessary conditions in the Earth's past for Abiogenesis to occur. I have more reason to accept Abiogenesis than magic pixies or a deities being the cause of all life.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I think it's obvious that I'm referring to all variations of Abiogenesis and all stated hypothesis, simple as that.

Okay so you’re in the same boat as all other “Evolutionist” You and I both know that all experimentation conducted by Miller has come up with unfavorable results, so are your beliefs based off Successful scientific experimentations?

Unfavourable results? Citation is needed again. Damn, Ne-yo, what are you basing these conclusions on?