Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Prokaryote fossils date back as far as 3.5 billion years and eukaryotes go back 1.7 billion.

Carl Woese, J Peter Gogarten, "When did eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei and other internal organelles) first evolve? What do we know about how they evolved from earlier life-forms?" Scientific American, October 21, 1999.

Please provide research data indicating that the publication is in error.

Why would I want to do that?

It just support my notion that all evidences point to LIFE EXIST SPONTANEOUSLY. Almost immediately after ocean/water formation and oxygen became available.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

You dont need primordial soup million years gradual changes of amino acids to make protein for eukaryotic, which is ridiculously stupid idea.

Abiogenesis inform us if Dr. Victor Frankenstein stitch human body together it will automatically come to life. Sadly even in fiction, it doesnt work that way. You still need 6000 volt electric lightning to trigger living Frankenstein monster.

Life isnt just biochemical reaction of organic matter. It is more likely something akin to energy invincible to light spectrum. The real question to life isnt about how life exist from soup, as in abiogenesis fairy tale.

It is about where this life energy/force come from.

originally posted by: cooperton
Ahh yes, it exists, therefore evolution must have done it. But let's analyze how 'evolution did it'.

That's the case with biological traits, yes, and we know how evolution did it. Genetic mutations and natural selection. Organisms that gained an ability to change gene expression during one's lifetime as a response to environmental pressure were more likely to survive than the ones that did not.

Epigenetics work on already existent genes, and genes require epigenetics for their proper expression. Which came first then, the gene, or the epigenetic modification of the gene? Both are necessary for proper functioning. I know you have no answer except "evolution did it".

Obviously the gene came first, and they are expressed properly without that ability. Epigenetics is basically a switch that turns the expression of certain genes on or off. It's NOT a modification of any kind. You keep using that word, but it's completely invalid here.

The much more logical answer is that all functions that are necessary for a gene and its modulation were all created at once in an organized blueprint.

Assumptions cannot be called logical. Slow incremental process simply makes more sense based on our scientific understanding of everything ever studied in the history of ever.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
It is about where this life energy/force come from.

Don't we need to first determine if this life force actually exists in order to try to find out where it came from?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.

The quadrillions of different species, which have always remained that exact, same, unique species, have proven it... beyond a doubt.

All of these claims about 'evolution' are nonsense, being supported as if true, over and over again...

The evidence shows that claim is complete nonsense.

Wrong. All of those species have changed and are different from the originals. Natural selection is a factor so your claim is bogus. Change isn't required. Many species experience mostly genetic drift (ie crocodiles, white sharks). This shows your ignorance of evolution, not a problem with the theory. Remember, changes only stick if they are agreeable with the environment and passed down.

None of the species have changed into another, different species.

What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.


We are no different than our ancestors, only we are - on average - taller than our ancestors were. We live - on average - longer than before. We have always been humans, and always will be humans, period.

Today, there are about 7.7 billion humans living on Earth. It's also 7.7 billion articles of evidence, showing that evolution is all garbage.

Do you seriously think any other case in history has ever shown over 7 billion pieces of evidence? And to actually dismiss, or ignore, all the evidence, which rips evolution claims to shreds, can only mean that you, and evolutionists, have never wanted truth, of any kind. Evolution is all about pushing their bs claims on us, heaping on more and more of their bs 'scientific' papers, 'find' many 'ancestor fossils' of humans, and other species, which is - of course - actual evidence of 'evolution', as we all know!!

This sham has gone on for over a century. Spewing more and more of this crap, each and every year, non-stop.

If it was based on real evidence, evolution would have been laughed at, and buried. Because they would understand there is no valid evidence to support it, while it is overwhelming amount of actual evidence that proves 'evolution' is not only wrong, and unfounded, and false...Evolution is a theory of pure invention, of fiction, of fantasy.


People cannot recognize the evidence is all around them, while they believe all of the evidence is from their amazing discoveries, of fossils, which were all unknown species, and were all millions of years old fossils, which nobody had ever found over thousands of years before. No, they only started to find all of those fossils about the same time Darwin came up with his theory, 'evolution'.

Nobody even knew dinosaurs existed, no fossils were ever found, once.....for thousands of years.

Then, a claim is made, that unknown fossils were discovered, in the ground below, which raises the question to what the original purpose was. Nobody ever mentioned what they were doing there, first at all, since it wouldn't make sense.

IIRC, they were geologists, hired by Rockefeller, for an 'expedition'. These were the first dino-fossils found in America, and it made headline news.


The billionaire oil man, Rockefeller, hires a group of geologists, for no reason. It wasn't to look for fossils, since nobody knew dinosaurs existed, at that point. It wasn't equipped or manned to find any oil, either.

So why did he hire a group of geologists for? Nobody asked why. Nobody asked what the purpose was.

And so the great Oil God told his faithful flock of geologists to go forth, and seek out what lays below our soils, and it was henceforth known that massive, strange beasts had once ruled over Earth. The Oil God was pleased with such a miraculous discovery, and soon decreed these great beasts in our soils produced all of the world's oil. 'Let these beasts forever be known as 'fossil fuels'.


These 'discoveries' were soon happening all the time, all over the Earth.

This is utter nonsense. All of it.


Nobody has ever found actual dinosaur remains in the soil. We may have found some extinct species, sure.



Once again, here is a case which has never been independently confirmed, or proven in any way. Their 'evidence' cannot be examined, or tested, to determine what they claim to be.

Why is it that the billions of people on Earth have never, ever, found a single dinosaur fossil in the soil? Same as nobody had ever, even once, found a dinosaur fossil for thousands of years - they don't exist.

a reply to: turbonium1

I've asked you this before but you never answered: What exactly is your definition of "species"? What factors differentiate a human from other primates and all living things on this planet? If nothing has changed, why does all life look "different"?

I just don't understand what your definitions are. Please take the time to respond. Thanks.

originally posted by: Barcs

Obviously the gene came first, and they are expressed properly without that ability.

You see, you are assuming that, because you assume evolution has to be true, and therefore had to have done it. But even the most rudimentary prokaryotes have epigenetic modification on their genes. This, therefore, would be another massive hurdle for the first organism, because modulation of gene expression is necessary.

Assumptions cannot be called logical.

So you admit all the assumptions that evolution relies on are illogical?

Slow incremental process simply makes more sense based on our scientific understanding of everything ever studied in the history of ever.

Maybe in your belief system, but from a logical perspective we observe today that organs, tissues, cells, organelles, etc, are all interdependent upon each other, and all pieces need to be in play for a viable functioning organism. This demonstrates that a piece-by-piece sequential addition to function could not have created the complete organisms we see today.

originally posted by: cooperton
You see, you are assuming that, because you assume evolution has to be true, and therefore had to have done it. But even the most rudimentary prokaryotes have epigenetic modification on their genes. This, therefore, would be another massive hurdle for the first organism, because modulation of gene expression is necessary.

Once again, you make the same mistake in thinking prokaryotes today are the same as they were billions of years ago. You seem to use this logical flaw for many arguments. No need to assume evolution is true, there is enough evidence to substantiate it. You still have NOT explained how epigenetics is a problem for evolution. You just keep reciting it like a mantra. Where is the issue?

So you admit all the assumptions that evolution relies on are illogical?

And I'm sure you're going to list these assumptions and relevant supporting data.

from a logical perspective we observe today that organs, tissues, cells, organelles, etc, are all interdependent upon each other, and all pieces need to be in play for a viable functioning organism. This demonstrates that a piece-by-piece sequential addition to function could not have created the complete organisms we see today.

Nope, that doesn't demonstrate that in the slightest. This is your issue, you are unable to make honest logical connections. The way organisms are today is not relevant to how they were billions of years ago, it's the same misunderstanding ad nauseam. It's not a sequential piece by piece addition. The existing pieces slowly change.

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the species have changed into another, different species.What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.

You are wrong. They all changed. Go ahead and give me an example of an organism that is the same exact species as it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Good luck with that one. The crocodile today was similar to the crocodile from the past, but it wasn't exactly the same and it wasn't the same species. Look it up.

We are no different than our ancestors, only we are - on average - taller than our ancestors were. We live - on average - longer than before. We have always been humans, and always will be humans, period.Today, there are about 7.7 billion humans living on Earth. It's also 7.7 billion articles of evidence, showing that evolution is all garbage.

Rhetoric and anecdotes are not valid arguments, sorry. There is massive evidence against that.

humanorigins.si.edu...

all the evidence, which rips evolution claims to shreds,

Funny, I've been seeing claims on this website for around a decade now and have never seen any testable evidence that conflicts with evolution, only creationist rhetoric like you have posted.

If it was based on real evidence, evolution would have been laughed at, and buried. Because they would understand there is no valid evidence to support it, while it is overwhelming amount of actual evidence that proves 'evolution' is not only wrong, and unfounded, and false...Evolution is a theory of pure invention, of fiction, of fantasy.

And what is all this?

talkorigins.org...

Oh yeah, don't mind that, it's just the link chock full of evidence for evolution all backed and linked to scientific research papers. You know the link that every creationist in the history of ever has blindly dismissed and ignored every time it's brought up. The kind you won't even read and just continue to spew propaganda and baseless rhetoric that has zilch to do with the scientific theory or evidence that backs it.

Double post. Here's an example of interdependent proteins that combine together to make bacterium flagella:



All pieces need to be present for a flagellum to work, so how would they have evolved in a piece-by-piece mutative manner?

originally posted by: Barcs
The way organisms are today is not relevant to how they were billions of years ago

How would you know what organisms were like billions of years ago? Didn't you just say assumptions are illogical? If this is so, then your entire theoretical belief system is illogical. It is based on assumptions that simply cannot be proven. Science is based on empirical observable data, yet this theory has somehow managed to by-pass due process and is now just a vast assumption that is religiously taught as fact in schools.

It's not a sequential piece by piece addition.

But genetic mutation is exactly that, a sequential alteration to the genetic code. This mechanism is theorized to have given rise to all biological novelties in the history of life. Yet exactly how a change in a gene, which changes protein structure, could culminate in a synchronous improvement in a network of interdependent organs is totally unseen in scientific literature. This is another vast assumption of faith that involves not just one miracle, but many.

originally posted by: cooperton
Double post. Here's an example of interdependent proteins that combine together to make bacterium flagella:

All pieces need to be present for a flagellum to work, so how would they have evolved in a piece-by-piece mutative manner?

Again, that's not the original flagellum, it's the flagellum after almost 4 billion years of evolution. It's the same nonsensical argument over and over with you.

How would you know what organisms were like billions of years ago? Didn't you just say assumptions are illogical?

I admit I don't know, but I'm not the one making claims about it. YOU ARE, so if YOU are to make such a claim, YOU must demonstrate the original flagellum in order to compare it. YOU are the one saying abiogenesis is impossible and a miracle, therefor you are appealing to ignorance by assuming the modern day cell is the same as it was almost 4 billion years back. You literally make this logical error over and over again and it's your only argument for pretty much everything stating that the original thing is the same as the modern thing when there is no reason to assume that at all.

But genetic mutation is exactly that, a sequential alteration to the genetic code.

But that's not what you said. You said the parts needed to be added 1 by 1 sequentially, which is complete nonsense. The parts all evolved together slowly changing. Not sure why this is so complicated to you. You didn't just suddenly have a lung pop up and then millions of years later a heart, then eventually a circulatory system. Those things were most likely all connected originally and much more simple.

a reply to: Barcs
On the other hand, We do know what 3.77 ~ 4 billion bacterium look like. We have discovered their microfossil.

Scientists have confirmed that the 3.4-billion-year-old Strelley Pool microfossils had chemical characteristics similar to modern bacteria. This all but confirms their biological origin and ranks them amongs the world's oldest microfossils.

Source: www.sciencedaily.com...

An example of one of the microfossils discovered in a sample of rock recovered from the Apex Chert, a rock formation in western Australia that is among the oldest and best-preserved rock deposits in the world. The fossils were first described in 1993 but a 2017 study published by UCLA and UW-Madison scientists used sophisticated chemical analysis to confirm the microscopic structures found in the rock are indeed biological, rendering them -- at 3.5 billion years -- the oldest fossils yet found.

Source: www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists announced on March 1, 2017 that they’ve identified the remains of 3,770-million-year-old microorganisms, now the oldest known microfossils on Earth. The discovery is in the form of tiny filaments and tubes – formed by bacteria – that lived on iron. They were found encased in quartz layers in what scientists call the Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt, on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay, in Quebec, Canada. This region was already known to contain some of Earth’s oldest rocks.

The scientists say this part of Canada likely once formed part of an iron-rich deep-sea hydrothermal vent system, which provided a habitat for some of Earth’s first life forms, between 3,770 and 4,300 million years ago.

Their work is published March 1 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature. First author is Matthew Dodd, a PhD student at UCL Earth Sciences and the London Centre for Nanotechnology.

Matthew Dodd concluded by saying:


These discoveries demonstrate life developed on Earth at a time when Mars and Earth had liquid water at their surfaces, posing exciting questions for extra-terrestrial life. Therefore, we expect to find evidence for past life on Mars 4,000 million years ago, or if not, Earth may have been a special exception.

Source: earthsky.org...

Oldest Known Life doesn't evolve from Earth's Soup. It is either magically appear as soon as water and oxygen become available, or it is possibly extra-terrestrial's origin.

Not surprising to me, because Bible's Genesis; Adam and Eve were not terrestrial's origin either. They come from Eden - where ever that may be.

a reply to: cooperton

It’s ironic that you call out anyone for assumptions when your entire premise is based on the assumption that “god did it” therefore rendering evolution null and void. The fact that over 95% of members of the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t sway ou yet you feel comfortable insisting that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is precise to theNth degree because some phycisists agree with it and because you personally believe it, it too is therefore accurate beyond a doubt. You’re one of the most narcissistic hypocrites I’ve seen in a long time so Kudos for that!

You want to know what real epigenetics looks like? Look at amphibians. When there are no males available, females can often become hermaphroditic and pollinate their own eggs. But please... carry on with the entertaining charade.

a reply to: EasternShadow

If you can't explain how the magic works, then we are back to abiogenesis.

a reply to: cooperton

Yet exactly how a change in a gene, which changes protein structure, could culminate in a synchronous improvement in a network of interdependent organs is totally unseen in scientific literature. This is another vast assumption of faith that involves not just one miracle, but many.

This has to be the most ridiculous statement you've ever made. Please post the citations from which you gathered this "information". Oh wait, there are none! It's totally unseen in scientific literature! There is no evidence that mutations contribute to the total organism's viability! What could we have been thinking?

a reply to: cooperton

Yet exactly how a change in a gene, which changes protein structure, could culminate in a synchronous improvement in a network of interdependent organs is totally unseen in scientific literature.

It's called "Population Genetics". And there are hundreds of papers in the literature describing mutations which contribute, or change, the overall viability of an organism. What planet are you on anyway??

Mutations are one of the fundamental forces of evolution because they fuel the variability in populations and thus enable evolutionary change. Based on their effects on fitness, mutations can be divided into three broad categories: the ‘good’ or advantageous that increase fitness, the ‘bad’ or deleterious that decrease it and the ‘indifferent’ or neutral that are not affected by selection because their effects are too small. While this simplistic view serves well as a first rule of thumb for understanding the fate of mutations, research in recent decades has uncovered a complex web of interactions. For example, (i) the effects of mutations often depend on the presence or absence of other mutations, (ii) their effects can also depend on the environment, (iii) the fate of mutations may depend on the size and structure of the population, which can severely limit the ability of selection to discriminate among the three types (making all seem nearly ‘indifferent’), and (iv) mutations' fate can also depend on the fate of others that have more pronounced effects and are in close proximity on the same chromosome.

A major theoretical goal in the study of the population genetics of mutations is to understand how mutations change populations in the long term. To this end, we have to consider many features of evolution and extant populations at both the phenotypic and molecular level, and ask how these can be explained in terms of rates and kinds of mutations and how they are affected by the forces that influence their fates.

We have increasing amounts of information at our disposal to help us answer these questions. The continuous improvement of DNA sequencing technology is providing more detailed genotypes on more species and observations of more phenomena at the genomic level. We are also gaining more understanding of the processes that lead from changes at the level of genotypes through various intermediate molecular changes in individuals to new visible phenotypes. Use of this new knowledge presents both opportunities and challenges to our understanding, and new methods have been developed to address them. Brian Charlesworth has been at the forefront of many of the developments in the population genetics of mutations, both in the collection and analysis of new data and in providing new models to explain the observations he and others have made. This themed issue of Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B is dedicated to him to mark his 65th birthday.

The authors of the accompanying papers have individually made important contributions to the field and have been directly associated with or indirectly influenced by his work. In this collection of papers, various aspects are considered in detail, and in this introduction, we aim to provide an overview as a basis for the in-depth treatments that follow. We outline some of the theories that serve as the quantitative basis for more applied questions and have been developed with the main aims of: (i) measuring the rates at which different types of mutations occur in nature, (ii) predicting quantitatively their subsequent fate in populations, and (iii) assessing how they affect some properties of populations and therefore could be used for inference. The subsequent papers are broadly arranged in a continuum from specific questions of basic parameter estimation (strength of mutation, selection, recombination), via those that contribute a combination of biological theories and data on these parameters, to those which mostly address broader biological theories. There is an enormous range of mutational effects on fitness, and wide differences exist in the strength of other evolutionary forces that operate on populations. This generates an array of complex phenomena that continues to challenge our capacity to mechanistically understand evolution.

To make problems tractable, theoreticians have divided the parameter space into smaller regions such that specific simplifying assumptions can be made. These typically comprise assuming the absence of particular events (e.g. no recombination) or the presence of particular equilibria (e.g. mutation-selection balance). Subsequently, new theories are often developed in which these assumptions are relaxed so as to narrow the gap to reality, typically including more interactions between various evolutionary forces, albeit at the cost of becoming less tractable to analysis. The dynamics of mutations are dominated by chance, yet we search for general principles that are independent of particular random events. This tension is reflected in the models used. All mutations start out as single copies and most are lost again by chance, so we can at best predict probabilities of particular fates; but the stochastic models that can deal rigorously with randomness are often too complex to analyse for realistic scenarios. If we are interested only in the mean outcome of many individual random events, we may approximate the process by deterministic models that predict a precise outcome; but these approximations can break down if only few individuals or rare events are involved. To facilitate concise descriptions, there is a long history in population genetics of using mathematical symbols as abbreviations for various parameters and observations, but unfortunately there is no unique nomenclature. To try to meet our two conflicting goals of conciseness and readability, we list some important evolutionary parameters and their common abbreviations in table 1. Even so, for good reasons of history or local convention, some of these symbols are defined differently in some papers in this collection.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: cooperton

But genetic mutation is exactly that, a sequential alteration to the genetic code. This mechanism is theorized to have given rise to all biological novelties in the history of life.Yet exactly how a change in a gene, which changes protein structure, could culminate in a synchronous improvement in a network of interdependent organs is totally unseen in scientific literature. This is another vast assumption of faith that involves not just one miracle, but many.

California Academy of Sciences

Video here at Khan Academy: www.khanacademy.org...

a reply to: EasternShadow

We can't tell how complex the original life is based on the fossils. That only gives an idea of the basic structure, there is no way to analyze it internally or compare it to Coop's diagram of a modern flagellum. We can't get DNA or genetic info from stuff that old.

I'm also not sure how you get to the conclusion of magic or aliens to explain the first life.

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm also not sure how you get to the conclusion of magic or aliens to explain the first life.

Easy.

The age of Earth doesnt give enough time frame for primordial soup to gradually evolve into primitive single cell life. We have data about the age of Earth versus the age of the oldest known micro-fossil.

Because science don't believe in magic, then there is another hypothesis.

It is called Panspermia.
Source en.wikipedia.org...

Technically Panspermia relies on alien microscopic life based origin - distributed by space dust. But hey, it's science hypothesis too. And it doesnt conflict with the Bible genesis.

One question for evolution. Do you evolutionist actually believe a primitive single cell micro-organism is capable to evolve into a 10 feet 60 kg Nyasasaurus parringtoni ( oldest known dinosaur circa 250 million years ago )? I'm Just curios.