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.

 

The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.


Abiogenesis remains an enigma of theories, yet it needs to be achieved to even get to the theory of evolution. So much debate goes into evolution, yet it's very foundation is in serious intellectual and scientific question. It is truly the Achilles heel of the entire scientific concept. I find people are just believing whatever scientific hypothesis suites their personal fancy in this area. But for a logical person there is no empirical evidence. Trusting in abiogenesis is an act of faith in scientific theory, it is no worse than trusting in intelligent design via faith.





Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules
that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem
designed to work together.

Fact: Some respected scientists say that even
a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen
by chance on earth.

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate
that life came from an extraterrestrial source,
what is the basis for ruling out God as that
Source ?



These are questions worth pondering .




posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I am sorry, but science does not need to answer anything. Science is the method you would use to answer the questions you have for yourself. It is not an entity.

You can find "scientists" that will tell you the sky is green if you offer enough money. Do your own science and find your own answers.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Maybe out of the billions of planets out there that failed at life, this one we call earth was the tiny chance that was successful.
If life happened on another planet maybe we would just be there, saying the same stuff.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Abiogenesis remains an enigma of theories, yet it needs to be achieved to even get to the theory of evolution.


Remember that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life, so what you suggest are basically apples and oranges.


edit on 2-4-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Whichever way you want to believe, you are still left with the ultimate question.

How did God or ET come into existence?

If you believe the scientific explanation then you believe that chance played a part in a single cell organism and then 'somehow' this single cell decided it needed to be more complex and so it goes on into an impossibility.

On the other hand, who made God, how did He (or She) spring into existence?

It is the same question in fact!

Why not face the fact that there is no answer for us mere mortals.

OP, you try to separate God from ETs. By definition, God is an Alien or ET. Not that it makes the question go away.

I am happy saying "I don't know!"

Are you!

Both paths lead to the same question eventually. How did we form.

P



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
If life happened on another planet maybe we would just be there, saying the same stuff.


Life in general is most likely a common phenomena throughout the universe when water is achievable in liquid form. It generally happens than not, and earth is a great example of that with life forming very early here.

Now if one wants to talk about advance life that may be a different story...



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
life crawled out of $hit, yeah prove me wrong. Yeah good luck its all wild theories, add religion its really wild. I these days tend to look internally instead of trying to by myself tackle things like this, it by itself is not really reasonable, You are asking the beginning of life, the meaning of it is yet to be explained, that is internal too. Good luck though my friend in your studies!



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358

How did God or ET come into existence?


The difference between the two is God is outside of the universe and ET is generally thought of as a part of the universe, so one side is that advance life might be very rare and so ET seeded, or the religious side in that God created the universe...

One thing that you need to realize is we can not comprehend the concept of forever/always been. We can not comprehend something that is endless either, so with or without God there is the chicken or the egg scenario no matter how one looks at it.



edit on 2-4-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pheonix358

How did God or ET come into existence?


The difference between the two is God is outside of the universe and ET is generally thought of as a part of the universe, so one side is that advance life might be very rare and so ET seeded, or the religious side in that God created the universe...

One thing that you need to realize is we can not comprehend the concept of forever/always been. We can not comprehend something that is endless either, so with or without God there is the chicken or the egg scenario no matter how one looks at it.




You missed the point! God is an extra-terrestrial.

P



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358

You missed the point! God is an extra-terrestrial.


Agree, but he is not an extra-terrestrial of this universe, and not what we consider as the definition of an extra-terrestrial.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Montana




Do your own science and find your own answers.


I have, I just ask that others consider the possibilities or impossibilities with these questions.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Which anti-science, religious whackjob site did you pull those images from? You would do well to invest some time learning about things you clearly don't unserstand (such as evolution), rather than wasting that time scouring religious propaganda websites....



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The questions you ask are meaningless. Fact is, if you combine simple mathematics with basic chemistry, then the numbers work. No god is needed.

It's merely our ego's that make the questions more difficult.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So much debate goes into evolution, yet it's very foundation is in serious intellectual and scientific question.

Rubbish.

It is truly the Achilles heel of the entire scientific concept.

More rubbish.

I find people are just believing whatever scientific hypothesis suites their personal fancy in this area.

Yet more rubbish.

But for a logical person there is no empirical evidence.

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

Trusting in abiogenesis is an act of faith in scientific theory,

No, it is an act of using the data and observations available to form working models and hypotheses. It's called 'science'.

it is no worse than trusting in intelligent design via faith.

Actually, it is, because there are facts to support theories of evolution and abiogenesis, whereas there is nothing to support ideas of intelligent design.

Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules
that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem
designed to work together.

That would be because they have been evolving in tandem for billions of years.

Fact: Some respected scientists say that even
a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen
by chance on earth.

Who are these scientists, and by whom are they "respected"?

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate
that life came from an extraterrestrial source,
what is the basis for ruling out God as that
Source ?

Scientists may speculate on whatever they like, but doesn't mean that there is any evidence backing up those speculations. Blind speculation is not science.

These are questions worth pondering .

Only if you are adamantly opposed to educating yourself, and have a lot of time to waste.

On to the graphics...

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

Please provide links to this research.

Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance

Again, who exactly are these "scientists"?

Fact: DNA ispackaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a "feat of engineering"

It's absolutely irrelevant what somebody, somewhere calls it.

DNA's capacity to store information still has no equal in today's computer age

Given that 'today's computer age' started only about 60 years ago, versus the billions of years that DNA has been evolving, this is to be expected. ...And this is totally irrelevant.

How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?

Billions of years of trial-and-error by means of evolution, that's how.

Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance?

Poor analogies aside, DNA is neither machinery, nor is it "highly reliable". And yes, I do believe that over incredibly vast spans of time, it can come into being, as any sane person would. It's not as if it just appeared overnight.

I expect you'll simply respond with more irrelevant, unattributable quotes and strawman arguments, but if you have any legitimate, unbiased research or information that supports your position, I'd like to see it.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Until science can take water and basic elements and create life, the simplest microscopic self replicating form, atheism is dead in the water ( pun intended ). They cannot, even after studying life and seeing exactly what is needed material wise, do the feat.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Trusting in abiogenesis is an act of faith in scientific theory, it is no worse than trusting in intelligent design via faith.

I'm willing to bet that this is all you really wanted to say.

Well, science is a work in progress and religion is pretty much a done deal and that is what makes the difference.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

what I ask people is if we as living organisms after seat are able to disintegrate into non living matter why can't non living turn into living . maybe this doesn't make sense but it makes sence to me. If a living microorganism came from universe it still doesn't matter had to come to existence somehow. yes chemistry is a mystirious biatch . Love is a beutiful chemistry too



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I feel the same..about this post
and fully agree with u on the rest



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

this could have been said less aggresive but otherwise good job



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The first 'fact' in the first image is not, in fact, a fact - and therefore there is no question to answer.

The second 'fact' in the first image is a fact. The answer to the question is that the scientist represents neither blind chance nor intelligent entity. The scientist represents the researcher attempting to validate or invalidate a small hypothesis about some act of nature.

The third 'fact' in the first image is not, in fact, a fact - it is an observation - and therefore the question is a non-sequitur. The first living 'organism' did not resemble the 'modern' cell. It did not use 'modern' RNA and Protein reactions. Protein and RNA molecules were formed by normal chemical reactions and well understood physics over many generations of primitive organisms undergoing change controlled by natural selection, NOT random chance.

The first free text 'fact' is not, in fact, a fact - it is again an observation. The keywords are 'seem designed'. Things are, in fact, NOT what they 'seem'. They DO work together because of well understood chemistry and physics, and were "naturally selected for" because it is an extremely efficient and flexible 'mechanism'.

The second free text 'fact', may well be a fact, in fact it is likely that the word 'some' could easily be replaced by 'nearly all'. However it is also an irrelevant fact because 'nearly all' scientists (respected or not; anonymous or not) understand that the first life on the planet was not a cell as we know cells in the modern world. The question is, accordingly meaningless; however to answer it at face value: any intelligent life form that hypothetically 'planted' life on Earth would essentially be indistinguishable to a 'god' as far as we are concerned - and that intelligent being would have had to have evolved on his or her own home planet. The "intelligent alien planted life" is essentially pointless - where did the alien come from? Somewhere and someplace an abiogenesis event must have occurred, either naturally or supernaturally.

The first 'fact' in the second image is not, in fact, a fact - it is yet another observation. That the chromosomes are efficient is due to the nature of chemical reactions and physics. Calling it a "feat of engineering" is romantic hyperbole, or perhaps self-serving overreaching depending on who it is doing the 'calling'. I can say that an airplane managing to stay in the air instead of crashing to the ground is 'magic' - does that make it so? Does it mean that we should doubt aerodynamics, gravity, and physics in general? The answer to the question is that 'undirected chance events' are filtered by the process of natural selection. Lots of 'undirected chance events' happen, few are 'chosen'.

The second 'fact' in the second image is probably a fact. The question however is another non-sequitur. 'mindless matter' did not 'achieve' any such thing. Chemistry and Physics provided a huge variety of possibilities, some of which included an advantageous method of out-competing other near-by living things (not necessarily 'cells).

The third 'fact' is more or less a fact, but remember, the first life had no such complicated processes - the first (who is to say how many happened?) 'abiogenesis event' did not result in a life form of a modern cell. The first life had to survive in a completely different, methane rich environment. That life actually 'Terra-formed' the planet and changed the atmosphere completely before the 'modern' cells could evolve. Complex cell structures came along many millions of years after 'the' abiogenesis event. The answer to the question is that no, I do not 'believe' that it can come about by chance. I KNOW that it came about by well understood chemical and physical processes and that 'useful bits' of chemical processes were naturally selected FOR while other less useful or even harmful chemical processes were selected AGAINST by the process of natural selection. There is no blind faith involved; just understanding how it works.

Edit to add this observation:

Your thread title claims 'questions that abiogenesis must answer before evolution' but then you ask questions only about organic 'objects' like DNA, proteins, and enzymes that only evolved millions of years after 'the' abiogenesis event. This seems to be a rather disingenuous 'bait and switch'. Are you really struggling to understand abiogenesis and how it was necessary before evolution could happen or are you merely trolling the forum to make an excuse for more non-scientific assertions about impossible and irrelevant 'mathematical probabilities' and their relationship to supernatural creation or intelligent design?



edit on 2/4/2015 by rnaa because: spelling

edit on 2/4/2015 by rnaa because: added observation at end



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join