It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can someone show me any evidence of abiogenesis?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

More like he's scared. Or does fear create trolls?




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

So you created a thread in response to my thread that was in response to your thread? Threadception.

But seriously, it only works once, once you go past the first time it gets redundant.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
The reality was I was expecting the old lightning in a pool of muddy water and kaboom
I noted another thread bashing belief in creation and just wanted to draw a comparison between the two faith positions

Nothing more really.

Good luck with what ever religious view you have

So, you really wanted people to come out and act "religious" about science.

Despite that not being the case, you still had to take that last jab.

Sad, really.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



The reality was I was expecting the old lightning in a pool of muddy water and kaboom


We don't know that. For all we know it could be aliens that created life on Earth. It could be God or the lightning or invisible pink unicorn or anything. We have no evidence.

We can hypothesize all we want but till we get some evidence it will still be hypotheses.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Borntowatch, I think it's safe to say no one on this site who recognizes your username wishes to participate in another of your festivals of ignorance.

Your profile is damaged goods. Go troll somewhere else for material to mock in your Sunday school lessons.
edit on 3/15/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I think we should start taking bets on how long it will be until the next trolling thread from the OP pops up.


originally posted by: Answer
Borntowatch, I think it's safe to say no one on this site who recognizes your username wishes to participate in another of your festivals of ignorance.

Your profile is damaged goods. Go troll somewhere else for material to mock in your Sunday school lessons.

Well said.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
New abiogenesis is probably happening all the time on earth. However, new froms of proto-life wouldn't be able to compete very well against the existing well entrenched forms of life we are familiar with. So we'll probably never see them!



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: iDope

I don't know why I'm even commenting on this thread (I will probably unsubscribe) since it's sort of like pissing in the wind, but I found one of your 3 possible explanations for life interesting.




There are really only three explanations for life: A creator created all organisms, Life has always existed in the universe, and abiogenesis is possible under the most perfect conditions.


I don't see how life could always have existed in the universe? If we approach the subject in terms of the theory of evolution (which I assume most of the people lambasting the OP are doing), how could you have an infinite regression of evolution? It ultimately has to start somewhere. That's what the entire theory is based on.

How could you have life, infinitely into the past? It seems like the numbers alone make that highly improbable, since you'd have to have micro organisms be smashed off of planets and moons into interstellar and even intergalactic space, surviving the entire process, then landing at the perfect location where they could propagate and evolve. At some point, those microscopic organisms had to have started somewhere. It seems like a highly implausible scenario and violates the law of entropy completely.

I was wondering if you could expand on how you view such a scenario? I won't unsubscribe until I hear your thoughts


FYI: I am not going to spend the time to put much of my random info/data into a well peiced together report, I may create a thread once I do more of my pwn research into the theory, but will give as much as I can as to why It is logical to believe that Life, could possibly always exist. So, It is merely a theory with really no testable way to find out. But I will elaborate, so you can unsubsribe


Evolution through natural selection is a proven explanation to show how organisms change and adapt over periods of time depending on changes in their habitat, extinction also occurs as organisms do not progress or change. --There are between 10-15 million species of life on Earth, yet it is believed over 99% that ever existed are extinct today. Everything is cyclical, everything is vibration, everything is energy.

The conservation of Energy Law states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can change form. So if all life is a form of energy, and the universe (being it's own isolated system of everything) has always had the exact amount of energy (potential, kinetic, etc). All matter present today in the universe has always been present in the universe, what would make an organism so different, being just matter? It may be, Life is not only everywhere on Earth but everywhere in the Universe. When you think about Life, a living organism, meant to survive, and meant to provide life for other organisms; it's as if life was always supposed to exist, like it always has. Would their be time if their was no life to measure time (aging)? Without life, nothing would die. What purpose would a universe serve if their were no life anywhere? To me it seems that everything exists as energy in order to help support and influence life from always living.

Organisms on this planet are either Prokaryotes (single celled organisms) or Eukaryotes (all other life)


The oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago, only about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth's crust. Eukaryotes only appear in the fossil record later, and may have formed from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors. The oldest known fossil eukaryotes are about 1.7 billion years old. However, some genetic evidence suggests eukaryotes appeared as early as 3 billion years ago


So we have fossils of prokaryotes 3.5 billion years ago, dig down deep enough, there may be far old fossils to find, possibly to the beginning of Earth's birth.



Prokaryotes have diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct prokaryotic types. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy, as eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. This enables prokaryotes to thrive in harsh environments as cold as the snow surface of Antarctica, studied in cryobiology or as hot as undersea hydrothermal vents and land-based hot springs. Prokaryotes live in nearly all environments on Earth. Some archaea and bacteria thrive in harsh conditions, such as high temperatures (thermophiles) or high salinity (halophiles). Organisms such as these are referred to as extremophiles.[25] Many archaea grow as plankton in the oceans. Symbiotic prokaryotes live in or on the bodies of other organisms, including humans.


Prokaryotes are everywhere on Earth, inside other mammals, places with no light, places that never reach above freezing of water, places that are above boiling point, places poisonous to nearly all other organisms, but these have all evolved to fit that habitat to keep their population going, and changing their structure to adapt. Now, if we are talking about evolution, then all prokaryotes came from 1. They are asexual and reproduce typically by binary fission. So this 1 prokaryote if there were only one, could father all others by dividing into two, then those to four etc. So this 1 prokaryote could be the ultimate organism, able to live in any condition imaginable in the entire Universe. In the vaccuum of space, within a star, frozen in a comet, under lakes of frozen methane, etc. You may ask, well these are just single celled organisms, not very impressive. But then, while prokaryotes are considered strictly unicellular, most can form stable aggregate communities. Thus, they interact and communicate with one another.



Some of the best-known examples of quorum sensing come from studies of bacteria. Bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate certain behaviors such as biofilm formation, virulence, and antibiotic resistance, based on the local density of the bacterial population. Quorum sensing can occur within a single bacterial species as well as between diverse species, and can regulate a host of different processes, in essence, serving as a simple indicator of population density or the diffusion rate of the cell's immediate environment. A variety of different molecules can be used as signals.


With the most simplest of all life showing resilience to all outside forces set out to destroy them, they are able to act as a community to protect the whole and the one. Some scientists have started to call a colony of single-celled organisms a multicellular organism. The reason they do this is because such colonies show behaviours such as:



Differential cell expression, collective behavior, signaling, programmed cell death, and (in some cases) discrete biological dispersal events all seem to point in this direction.


Even in a big bang, why could not a single prokaryote exist?



Recent research carried out on extremophiles in Japan involved a variety of bacteria including Escherichia coli and Paracoccus denitrificans being subject to conditions of extreme gravity. The bacteria were cultivated while being rotated in an ultracentrifuge at high speeds corresponding to 403,627 g (i.e. 403,627 times the gravity experienced on Earth). Paracoccus denitrificans was one of the bacteria which displayed not only survival but also robust cellular growth under these conditions of hyperacceleration which are usually found only in cosmic environments, such as on very massive stars or in the shock waves of supernovas. Analysis showed that the small size of prokaryotic cells is essential for successful growth under hypergravity. The research has implications on the feasibility of panspermia.[15][16]



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I agree. Time to find another community to hang out with, borntowatch. We're all wise to your little games here.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: iDope

Thank you for your well thought out and sourced reply.

After reading it, I'm not sure I made myself entirely clear. The science behind evolution cannot point anywhere BUT to a genesis (to use the term figuratively). Prokaryotes or not.

The only way I can see an eternal universe producing life is if it were one in which there were eternal "big bangs" and consequate "big contractions". An eternal singularity, beating like a pulse, exploding in creation and contracting in destruction, over and over again. But even this does not adequately explain how life could exist in the purely materialist sense, since on each subsequent "bang" you could have any number of mathematical probabilities of life (most of which would be astronomically low). It would take the most remarkable bang after the most remarkable contraction to produce conditions necessary for life, let alone the conditions we now find ourselves in as sentient beings.

I am unconvinced you have provided a satisfactory theory on how material living beings could exist for eternity. You simply can't induce an infinite regress, especially when the theory of evolution is your entire platform. You will eventually wind up with a singularity (which is sort of where we are now).



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I am going to continue for the sake of continuing as I ran out of space. This is more on studies of simple organisms in a space like setting.


On 29 April 2013, scientists in Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, funded by NASA, reported that, during spaceflight on the International Space Station, microbes seem to adapt to the space environment in ways "not observed on Earth" and in ways that "can lead to increases in growth and virulence"




On 19 May 2014, scientists announced that numerous microbes, like Tersicoccus phoenicis, may be resistant to methods usually used in spacecraft assembly clean rooms. It's not currently known if such resistant microbes could have withstood space travel and are present on the Curiosity rover now on the planet Mars.[20] On 20 August 2014, scientists confirmed the existence of microorganisms living half a mile below the ice of Antarctica.[21][22] On 20 August 2014, Russian cosmonauts reported finding sea plankton on outer window surfaces of the International Space Station and have been unable to explain how it got there


So even if Life didn't start here on Earth billions of years ago, which is a lazy assumption stated in the OP, It is logical in explaination to notice resiliency of basic life, it is also logical to expect similar resilient forms of simple life to find a habitat on a number of planets, ones without water, ones that rain arsenic, etc. These organisms can without a doubt travel through space on meteors/comets and survive impact, make home nearly anywhere.
Think about this...If all of these extremophiles are being found in the harshest most extreme areas on Earth, how did those get there? Yes the Earth is very old, and humans are very young, the Earth has changed a lot over billions of years, and yet these prokaryotes seemed to exist on Earth since it was no longer a ball of molten rock. Once it was cooled, likely before liquid water was on the surface, prokaryotes could make a home out of what was offered to them once they landed here. Also think about in the existence of the entire universe, how many planets have come and gone, collisons between giant harborers of microscopic life, these collisons send all that material spweing out into space.

Certain Prokaryotes could easily still remain and just be sent out and continue to exist until they find somewhere else. Depending on the planet and time, those would evolve to more complex structures depending on what suits them best. If the planet is harsh to more advanced life forms, maybe little atmosphere or water, it is likeley the simple organism will remain just that, simple. Here is how prokaryotes become eukaryotes


The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork. Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.


All life known on Earth and presumably all life anywhere has genetic DNA. A code which defines what it is.
All life on Earth is composed of Carbon, the 4th most abundant material in the Universe, after 3 gases. Also our 4th most abundant element in our body.


When combined with oxygen and hydrogen, carbon can form many groups of important biological compounds including sugars, lignans, chitins, alcohols, fats, and aromatic esters, carotenoids and terpenes. With nitrogen it forms alkaloids, and with the addition of sulfur also it forms antibiotics, amino acids, and rubber products. With the addition of phosphorus to these other elements, it forms DNA and RNA, the chemical-code carriers of life, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the most important energy-transfer molecule in all living cells.


Since Carbon is also found in Stars, planets, atmospheres, and meteors; organisms that we deem "life" are composed of the same materials all through the universe. What makes the Earth or Sun to not be considered an organism, living at that? I see many reseblances between micro life and macro-planets and stars.

I have not given anytype of proof to the theory as to why life could always exist in the Universe, and always has existed; but I did at least try to explain how living organisms are extremley keen to the idea that they must continue surviving. Without life always being existant, ambiogenesis on one level or another would have to be present. From no life to life at a single cellular point. So ambiogenesis supporters must also agree that the Universe was just made and exists to exist, planets and stars just being planets and stars. And at one point somehwere in the distant cosmos some molecules combined and just formed life that now had a meaning to survive. Energy with the means to gather more energy in order to stay alive. And someohow, DNA decided to appear in all living organisms and viruses, where as it wouldn't have existed before there was life. Then came a consciouss that allows our brain to even conceive of these quandries.

If anyone beside me finds this remotley interesting, I will contine the research and start a thread. if not. meh, ambiogenesis might just do it for me, create a living thread out of the available information within these responses.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: iDope

But you are just explaining the theory of panspermia to me, and not reconciling how that theory could possibly work in an eternally active universe? Life would have had to have had a beginning. Even if it was at a certain date in eternity. Which essentially knocks 1 of your 3 explanations for life out of the running.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

If the universe is eternal then it goes to reason that life is eternal as well.

Abiogenesis is one answer to life being created at one point in eternity, that doesn't mean abiogenesis hasn't been happening at different points in eternity for an eternity as well though.

Panspermia could be another answer, being the result of abiogenesis already taking place on another planet before the DNA being ejected by a meteor or something.

If life has happened once it has happened before, that goes back eternally in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




If the universe is eternal then it goes to reason that life is eternal as well.


No, it doesn't.



Abiogenesis is one answer to life being created at one point in eternity, that doesn't mean abiogenesis hasn't been happening at different points in eternity for an eternity as well though.


Granted. See where I inferred that under different scenarios above.



Panspermia could be another answer, being the result of abiogenesis already taking place on another planet before the DNA being ejected by a meteor or something.


Panspermia is a cop out. While it might work to explain the propagation of life throughout the cosmos (in a model in which the numbers would have to match that of GOD), it does nothing to explain abiogenesis. For someone who is continually calling people stupid, you should be able to wrap your head around this basic fact.



If life has happened once it has happened before, that goes back eternally in my opinion.


That was sort of the crux of my question. How does it go back eternally? How do you picture it going back into eternity? If you think it just always was, well you might as well be talking about God.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Where have I ever called anyone stupid, much less continually? LOL! You must be mistaking me with another poster because no one is stupid in my eyes. Don't put words in my mouth.

Or maybe you're projecting your presuppositions on me because you think I'm so smart? Thanks if that's the case.



That was sort of the crux of my question. How does it go back eternally? How do you picture it going back into eternity? If you think it just always was, well you might as well be talking about God.


Energy. Everything derives from energy.

And yes, that's exactly my point, God is eternal, so is the uni/multiverse.
edit on 3/15/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
It is my understanding that life cannot become more complex, that is in the way of adding more genetic information. It can only modify or reduce the genetic information. Isn't that correct?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



Where have I ever called anyone stupid? LOL! You must be mistaking me with another poster because no one is stupid in my eyes.


Except Christians.



Don't put words in my mouth.


Must have been the one armed man, right?



Energy. Everything derives from energy.


I would agree with that.



And yes, that's exactly my point, God is eternal, so is the uni/multiverse.


Could you clarify? Do you view it as an eternal universe or an eternal multiverse? Ultimately we're just trading porns for mental masturbation here, but I enjoy seeing people think, and hearing what comes out of their minds.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch




Nothing more really.

Trolling then. Got it.

No nibbles. Too bad.


Plenty of nibbles
This thread was posted to reflect the Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

Though if you disagree with my thread or reason for making it wouldnt it be better just to leave it alone and not get involved rather than come on to it and call people names

Do you not see the comparison between the two faith positions?

You call me theTroll when i made a perfectly relevant and clear point, a point you validated



originally posted by: Phage
Nope. There is none.
There is a good amount of hypothesizing though. And some evidence of how precursors to life formed..


I just wanted to show belief Vs belief, religion Vs religion.

Perfectly valid as far as I can see.

Science (evolution) suggests life came from the dirt, same as Christianity.

Not very hard to work out is it...really



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Where have I ever continually called Christians stupid? You're putting words in my mouth. I don't think Christians are stupid. Misguided yes, but not stupid. Please point out where I've ever called anyone on these boards stupid much less a Christian?

One-armed man? What's that mean? Lol.



Could you clarify? Do you view it as an eternal universe or an eternal multiverse? Ultimately we're just trading porns for mental masturbation here, but I enjoy seeing people think, and hearing what comes out of their minds.


If the universe is the only one, then the universe is eternal. If there are multiple universes then the multiverse is eternal whereas our universe isn't. Either way, our universe derives from energy so that energy must have always existed somewhere. Whether it transfers from universe to universe or keeps pulsating within this solitary universe is anyone's guess.

We are derived from energy and life itself is energy, meaning life has always existed. So if the uni/multiverse is eternal then so is life. We're the expression of that energy.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: borntowatch

So you created a thread in response to my thread that was in response to your thread? Threadception.

But seriously, it only works once, once you go past the first time it gets redundant.


No it doesnt, it is just asking for an answer, if science is the new religion and the new religion is based on evidence then I am just asking for evidence.
Is it a faith or is it scientifically verifiable.

Adam being created from dust/dirt is a faith, make no mistake, no one pretends its science that I know of




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join