It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Can someone show me any evidence of abiogenesis?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:36 AM

originally posted by: flyingfish

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

And in the end.. falsifying evolution/abiogenesis is not evidence for what ever creation magic you believe in.
It is clear maintaining your state of ignorance is of great importance to you.
In order to deal with ignorance and false beliefs in a continual and open way, it is necessary to have the input of ignorant and false beliefs to discuss. In this respect I congratulate you on giving us such great fodder!

and I you for such great evidence once and for all proving science is not a form of religion indoctrinating the masses with pseudo did post proof right...surely if you are claiming the win, you won with evidence, evidence?
edit on b2015Sun, 15 Mar 2015 03:37:02 -050033120150am312015-03-15T03:37:02-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:41 AM
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Where have I ever continually called Christians stupid?

You do so continually in the threads you author yourself.

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?

See your own thread history. If it's beyond you to understand why Christians might view your continual assault on them on this very website as an indication that you feel they are stupid, that's fine.

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

If you have to ask, it's already over your head.

If the universe is the only one, then the universe is eternal.

How do you know this? If you are referring to the recent speculation via mathematical models that the universe is eternal, they haven't been fact checked. The math has not been double checked, and even simple observation in the form of the background radiation of the universe suggests they might be fudging the numbers to meet their own conclusions. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened in science OR math, either.

If there are multiple universes then the multiverse is eternal whereas our universe isn't.

It's interesting to me that you can postulate all these things on a whim while belittling the beliefs of others.

Either way, our universe derives from energy so that energy must have always existed somewhere.

Curiously, you agree with Christians here

We are derived from energy and life itself is energy, meaning life has always existed.

In what form? Are you postulating the evolutionary theory? If you are, then all life (even in the universe) must have evolved from a single source, just as it did on earth

You seem to be blowing a lot of hot air out your ass, young jedi.
edit on 15-3-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:42 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Can someone show me any evidence?

Actual evidence? Well, that is the easy part. The entire biosphere that we live in is not just evidence, but absolute proof.

Just so we know what we are talking about here is the simple definition from Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

You exist; You are life. It cannot be denied that life exists on Earth. It seems reasonable to assert that there was a time in history when no life existed on Earth. The transition from a barren planet to a living planet must have taken place somehow.

Many (NOT ALL) religions people call that transition 'Creation' and believe that it was caused by a supernatural being interfering in the natural world. Most (NOT ALL) scientists call that transition 'Abiogenesis' and believe that it was caused by wholly natural chemical reactions and governed wholly by natural physics.

The bottom line is that the evidence for abiogenesis is simply the existence of life on Earth. Whether or not your internal psychology requires you to call the process 'Creation' or 'Abiogenesis' is irrelevant to the factual existence of transition from a state of non-life to life.


How did it start, any good theories, half baked ones would be good.

Again, you set a rather low bar for response, though you ask for something that doesn't exist and may never exist: a SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Abiogenisis. Of course, I suspect that what you really mean by 'half-baked' is a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS about how abiogenesis might have happened.

As it happens there are a number of very good hypotheses. Some more half-baked than others perhaps, but many of them may, in time, be brought together in a more or less comprehensive MODEL. The MODEL may eventually be expanded and refined enough to be called a THEORY, but personally I have my doubts that that will happen in anything less than a century from now; I'm rather pessimistic about that.

Anyway, here is a video that explains quite clearly and in terms fairly easily understood by non-scientists one of those hypotheses. There is necessarily a bit of 'hand waving' going on, glossing over the fine detail, because it is meant for the layman, not the biochemist or physicist. But that 'find detail' that is glossed over is well understood biochemistry and biophysics - there is nothing requiring extraordinary chemical reactions or physics - it just happens according to the science that we already know.

I do recommend that you follow the advice at the beginning of the video and turn up your speakers (unless you are in a 'quiet zone' like work, a library, or with a sleeping spouse next to you (in which case you should be using earphones anyway )

Muddy pool with a lightning flash? Anything better than that.

The video above addresses that issue near the beginning. The process described in the video is certainly much better than a lightening flash.

Saying it came from outer space is lazy, even if it came from outer space it must have arisen and then evolved from somewhere

It is, however, known with absolute certainty that the (obviously non-living) organic chemicals, building blocks for all life on earth, exist in great abundance throughout space. Whether Earth was seeded from space via comets or asteroids or whatever, or had its own stock of the required organic chemicals is irrelevant to abiogenesis on Earth. You are right that claiming that actual life was 'planted here' from space, just to deny Earthly abiogenesis is certainly intellectually lazy.

Really abiogenesis from dirt? I would have to be a religionist, faith person to believe that sort of thing.

Absolutely. As the video I embedded points out, there is only one book that claims that life came from dirt.

and no this is not about religion, its about evidence, even best guess theory is fine here.

I hope I've answered your questions. The study of Abiogenesis is not as mature as other fields in biology and physics, but progress is being made.
edit on 15/3/2015 by rnaa because: spelling and markup

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:48 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

My claim leads to the point that evolution has occurred, but with only evolution and no other "metaphysical" force creating life, evolution does not explain how life began, therefore it either had to emerge from no life or there was always life.. I am simply stating that the buillding blocks for simple life could have always been present in the universe. Evidence does not insist that a Big Bang actually occurred. New findings are found every year, either supporting this theory, or supporting differing thories, though similar to Big Bang. If all energy and and matter of a universe could be collapsed into a singularity of extreme density, how the BB theory suggests, what suggests that life couldn't remain inside that singularity? Before the BB, there could have been a universe 8 trillion years old with tons of life, when it collapsed and formed ours, life would seemingly be destroyed, correct? But what if the Universe is encoded in it's own way to ensure life always exists, therefore, it's only purpose is to support life. Just like all creatures are driven to pass on their genes to ensure their species will survive.

This all is IMHO a possibility, and I have no emotional ties to my theory, it is simply an idea that I found interesting. With how strange the universe is, to expect answers that are simple and understandable and come with easy to see proof to such questions such as of life/death/souls/history 13 billion years ago, etc is like the universe doesn't want to be mysterious, and that all life everywhere is just a mere accident-or a designed program-or designed by a creator. This creator must then always have existed, created himself, or was created by another creator (whom committed creatorcide). And we are back at the same question.

If you believe in a mutiverse, would there need to be a BB in each multiverse? Or would one BB create many universes? If there are multiple universes, just as there are higher dimensions, wouldn't it be plausible for life to always exist in a universe, while another is being crunched into a singularity? An endless cycle where there are BB's and expansion through multiple universes, yet it is constructed in a way to ensure life always persists. Possibly one universe could seed the newborn universe with several forms of simple life, then let the universe and time do their thing to allow it to survive somewhere? Just a thought. I admit I am not an astrophysicist.

Life could merely be encoded within the dark matter and energy of the universe. If it is what comprises most of everything in vast space, Then dark matter could be like the hardware or software that is controlling the universe and the dark energy is all of the data, the code. It could be that this code contains laws that a universe must subject to, and the only reason that a universe would some sort of building block to ensure elements, chemicals, physics engine, mathematical beauty, protons, electrons, etc. All follow the code that was created to ensure "stable chaos" where anything could happen as long as it happens within the domain of the rules put forth.

The really only reason that I even think and like the idea of life always existing in some form is that it makes more sense as to why a Universe would even exist in the first place. Why need planets if nothing will ever be on them? Why be comprised of certain elements, where the most abundant are the ones necessary for life? Without life, noone or nothing could appreciate the beuty of it's homeworld, the strangeness of purple and green skies and floating plants on one planet, to something even more spectacluar as Earth. Without life there would be no need to exist. The only reason something is made or created is for a purpose. Everything has a purpose, the universe would serve zero purpose if it didn't also house life. If there is noone there to see it, feel it, hear it, would the universe even exist without life? Life comes in so many shapes and sizes that without it's presence in the universe, the universe then shows zero mystery and zero imagination. It's like building cities when there are no people. A waste of space-time-material and energy.

What if, and this is a big what if, What if a planet itself reaches a point in its evolution where the planet allows life to exist on its ground, when that planet feels that it has a habital area for something to live on it? Stupid, but I see little reason to believe that Earth is not aware of what we are doing to it. The Earth gave us everything we have today, we did not need to go anywhere else to get where we have, and yet we destroy it so quickly based on how long we have been here and how long Earth has been here, and how long life has been here. Just like single celled organisms can comunicate, is it crazy to think that maybe planets and stars could communicate as well? Through their own freqencies or magnetism or a way only a planet could know?

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:53 AM

originally posted by: borntowatch
and I you for such great evidence once and for all proving science is not a form of religion indoctrinating the masses with pseudo did post proof right...surely if you are claiming the win, you won with evidence, evidence?

There is no evidence one way or the other, but your way seems to need a bigger stretch. I don't see how you can claim that science and religion are the same when their MO is distinctly diffrenet.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:12 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

and I you for such great evidence once and for all proving science is not a form of religion indoctrinating the masses with pseudo did post proof right...surely if you are claiming the win, you won with evidence, evidence?

So what you're insinuating is that because we don't have compelling evidence for abiogenesis then all of science should be disregarded as religious fantasy? O_o

Your failed troll thread is evolving.
edit on 15-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: borntowatch

and I you for such great evidence once and for all proving science is not a form of religion indoctrinating the masses with pseudo did post proof right...surely if you are claiming the win, you won with evidence, evidence?

So what you're insinuating is that because we don't have compelling evidence for abiogenesis then all of science should be disregarded as religious fantasy? O_o

Your failed troll thread is evolving.

LMAO, it actually is. Curious what the reply will be?

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:40 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

if the building blocks for life always exist then life will always exist. Life is like a virus and the universe is one grand host to attach itself to, forever and ever in eternal symbiotic relation.

The Big Bang does not explain how all matter and energy was created either. It states that it continually goes through phases of singularity, expansion, and crunching, over and over. So all universal matter would have to have been created or always available. How do you create energy and matter from nothing? As far as we know it is not possible. But it would make sense to think that at sometime, at least that singularity was created to start the cycle of the Big Bang process into perpetual motion. Perpetual motion also defies our law of energy conservation, yet the universe is perpetual, unless that is one day it never collapses, or the singularity remains a singularity for eternity.

Why couldn't life be part of the singularity? It was just always encoded into the design of the universe. I'm sure the universe has laws within itself that a life form cannot destroy the universe, at most cause the universe to collapse once again and start the process over. Seedding the expanding universe with pieces of life to find a home, just like panspermia, except life is always there in search of planets without life to colonize.

Is it so scientifically ridiculous to purpose a theory that life always exists? I can't offer physical proof and choose not to start using philosophy or theology to start explaining it. If life wasn't necessary or if it wasn't always present and some sort of ambiogenesis happend her on Earth and other planets, to create one single organism out of that which had no life, which if ambigenesis is infact how life began, there is no reason to believe it isn't happening today, still on a single celled level. So in a way a universe that allows ambiogenesis to exist allows life to be created within it. And if ambiogenesis is physics/nature/biology mixture of lifes meaning and origin, why must it only happen on a planet after billions of years of Big Bangs beginning?

Why couldn't an organism be created as soon as it expands? The cockroach of single celled organisms, able to live forever by gathering the energy created by the Big Bangs radiation/heat/momentum and replicating so fast that the species can never perish, riding a rock that during the beginning is constantly contacting other rocks, and on each contact parts of that life goes to the other and so on. In order for my theory to hold ground, an organism must be able to survive in that type of event. so either life lives within the singularity or it devlops as a result of the BigBang when it happens. If ambiogenesis can exist at one point of time, no reason it couldn't when time was being created and all matter was one. Seems like all the necessary material would be in one spot to build life from. If life wasn't an important aspect of the universe, I still see little reason for it.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:58 AM
Here's a theory of Abiogenesis without a God Complex.

PROTIP: It's not really considered good manners to start proselytizing in the middle of SCIENCE! except on the rare occasions when it's completely appropriate to scream:


Enjoy your experiments.

edit on 3/15/15 by GENERAL EYES because: fixed embed...tired...confession in the morning

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:01 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Do you hold onto any other form of proof on how life was created? Is there any part of a religious explaination that has any proof? No part of Genesis holds substantial evidence as to how Earth or every organism came into being. Why hundreds of millions of organisms went extinct throughout history? As if a Creator did not create that strange fly on a remote island quite well enough for it's habitat to survive. Nature and natural selection is trial and error, and through time and existing does it become apparent what works. But it does not need to be apparant what works in order to survive. There is no way to guarantee which spouse will give you the best chances to have a healthy child with the best skills to succeed in the world he is brought into. Yet one must try if they want to pass on their genes. if noone took that chance, we would be extinct in a century, when this happens we can create an eternal recording device and see how humans come back to the Earth or a new species takes power.

A person saying something that he holds self evident as truth, yet offers no way to discern his truth from anothers truth, and offers no guidance for one to find their own truth, persecutes another believed truth for being a lie, but has no evidence to why it is a lie besides that it contradicts his truth, is often is just saying a truth only true to him.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:41 AM

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.

On the contrary, the OP's thread lead to a post by Elton, who mentioned the work of Andrew Crosse, which I knew nothing about. Irregardless of the validity of Crosse's work, it shows that every post may have some value to someone.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:55 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well if posting my personal opinion is somehow calling people stupid then I guess you're calling me stupid right now. You're putting words in my mouth.

If the universe is made of energy and energy is eternal then... the universe is eternal because it is made up of energy! Very simple deductive reasoning going on here, no hot air being blown out of anywhere on my part.

All I see is you claiming I'm calling people stupid when I'm not. That's hot air if I've ever seen it! Sorry if my opinion makes you feel stupid, that's not on me though, that's on you.

I don't belittle anyone's beliefs, I just have a different view on what the bible means. Are you belittling my beliefs just because you disagree with me? You're projecting a lot onto me that isn't true. If me stating my opinion on a public forum makes you think I'm calling people stupid or belittling their beliefs then you need to evaluate why you think that because I do neither of those things.

Your projection sounds like insecurity to me. I could be wrong, just stating my personal opinion. Sorry if that makes you feel stupid or belittled but that's no reason for me to stop stating my opinion.
edit on 3/15/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:27 AM
Omne Vivum Ex Vivo...

No evidence can be shown. All evidence points to the opposite.

Yet, here we are....

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:57 AM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

Can someone show me any evidence?

Nope. There is none.
There is a good amount of hypothesizing though. And some evidence of how precursors to life formed..

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:05 PM

originally posted by: Astyanax



Born you do realise you're trolling with this one don't you?
edit on Rpm31515v112015u54 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:05 PM

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: Astyanax



Born you do realise you're trolling with this one don't you?

I dont see it as a troll as much as a challenge to those who hold fast to evolution and abiogenesis to come to the table with some evidence.
Granted the evidence is life itself, interesting tack in a rough storm, still the explanation of how seems to be at best a guess, assumption or for the very learned, an unknown.

From my perspective I think some people in this thread have been far more honest about answering the question than I would have thought.

A troll thread, no never was meant that way. It was an answer thread to how God created life from dust, reflecting to a degree how sciences best guess is life from dirt water and a spark of some type.

Creation v science, sounds like evolution to me, just one sounds guided and the other random in relation to abiogenesis.
One states a simple form of life (is life ever simple) the other complex life.

and LucidLunacy, your strawman about me thinking all science being redundant, please dont be so, well just please dont

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:11 PM
a reply to: borntowatch

Ok, fair enough. Perhaps it's just the sudden influx of
spin off threads getting to me. Some of the answers seemed
to honest to be comfortable.
edit on Rpm31515v122015u19 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:16 PM
Some genes 'foreign' in origin and not from our ancestors

Many animals, including humans, acquired essential 'foreign' genes from microorganisms co-habiting their environment in ancient times, according to new research. The study challenges conventional views that animal evolution relies solely on genes passed down through ancestral lines, suggesting that, at least in some lineages, the process is still ongoing.

In humans, they confirmed 17 previously-reported genes acquired from HGT, and identified 128 additional foreign genes in the human genome that have not previously been reported.
Some of those genes were involved in lipid metabolism, including the breakdown of fatty acids and the formation of glycolipids. Others were involved in immune responses, including the inflammatory response, immune cell signalling, and antimicrobial responses, while further gene categories include amino-acid metabolism, protein modification and antioxidant activities.
The team were able to identify the likely class of organisms the transferred genes came from. Bacteria and protists, another class of microorganisms, were the most common donors in all species studied. They also identified HGT from viruses, which was responsible for up to 50 more foreign genes in primates.
Some genes were identified as having originated from fungi. This explains why some previous studies, which only focused on bacteria as the source of HGT, originally rejected the idea that these genes were 'foreign' in origin.
The majority of HGT in primates was found to be ancient, occurring sometime between the common ancestor of Chordata and the common ancestor of the primates.
The authors say that their analysis probably underestimates the true extent of HGT in animals and that direct HGT between complex multicellular organisms is also plausible, and already known in some host-parasite relationships.
The study also has potential impacts on genome sequencing more generally. Genome projects frequently remove bacterial sequences from results on the assumption that they are contamination. While screening for contamination is necessary, the potential for bacterial sequences being a genuine part of an animal's genome originating from HGT should not be ignored, say the authors.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: Stormdancer777

But it has nothing to do with the topic.

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:24 PM
science is always making new discoveries , just sayin

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in