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.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

So why did none of these simple organisms survive so we can see them today?

Why don't we witness anything like this happening in the world today?

They all just conveniently died off without leaving any trace of their existence? You have nothing but what you imagine which is no better than me imagining God did it.

The number of holes in your argument are numerous even if you refuse to see them.

You are wrong to assume my mind is closed to science. I very much support the scientific method and can distinguish between scientific sounding imagination and things actually proven by scientific method. It appears to me the line is much more blurred for the ones who refuse the possibility of God than myself.

Some of the faithful both those who have faith in natural causes and those who have faith in the supernatural can't seem to understand where the line really is, but I see quite clearly.

My faith is not intimidated by science. For I would believe God set in motion the conditions necessary for abiogenesis by natural causes to explain life if natural causes were ever proven using scientific method. I believe in creation but it would be no issue for me to accept Intelligent design made to look random.


edit on 7-9-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: peter vlar

So why did none of these simple organisms survive so we can see them today?


Not a big fan of science or due diligence I see. Ok... Let's simplify this then. The conditions that existed on earth when the first life appeared were nothing like what we see today. There wasn't any oxygen in the atmosphere at that point. The organisms that were able to thrive in the atmospheric conditions of that time period wouldn't be capable of surviving in our current atmosphere. They were adapted to a very specific ecological niche that no longer exists. As conditions slowly changed, so too did the organisms. It's not anywhere near as complicated as you make it sound.


Why don't we witness anything like this happening in the world today?


What? Abiogenesis? See above... Conditions that existed then do not exist today. Why would you expect the same results from completely different environment and atmosphere?


They all just conveniently died off without leaving any trace of their existence? You have nothing but what you imagine which is no better than me imagining God did it.


Not quite. I've got genetics and testable hypotheses. We've got evidence of self assembly of organic molecules that demonstrates that what is hypothesized in abiogenesis is a workable scenario. We don't yet know all of the conditions that existed when life first began which makes it a little difficult to replicate the process. It is however a viable scenario with far more evidence to support it than "god did it".


The number of holes in your argument are numerous even if you refuse to see them.



According to the person whose entire argument is premised on circular reasoning. I'll take that with a big grain of salt.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You make all those statements as if they are factual proof that your version is based in reality.

Your version is based in your imagination. Your failure to simply admit what is obvious proves that the lines are much more blurred in your head than mine.

I'm not saying it isn't/wasn't possible. I'm saying their is a significant lack of evidence that can only be filled by imagination, which is no different than filling those holes by saying God did it.

Both ideas are based on one's imagination. And both are based on evidence that seems plausible to the one who has faith in what they imagine to be true.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Time is not linear, and there are all kinds of holes in space (doorways, if you like) that would allow a living thing to be instantly transported anywhere in spacetime, creating a time loop. A tiny little bacteria is all that's necessary. Well, you say, the living thing had to be "created" in some fashion at some point in order to be transported back through time. I say you don't understand how time works.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Surely abiogenesis is a specific subtype of biogenesis?


The prefix "A" before a word generally means NOT or WITHOUT. Biogenensis means the development of life from existing life. Abiogenesis = NOT biogenesis. It's not a subtype of biogenesis any more than atheism is a subtype of theism. They are near opposites.


Fair enough.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Time is not linear, and there are all kinds of holes in space (doorways, if you like) that would allow a living thing to be instantly transported anywhere in spacetime, creating a time loop. A tiny little bacteria is all that's necessary. Well, you say, the living thing had to be "created" in some fashion at some point in order to be transported back through time. I say you don't understand how time works.


I doubt that the environment sufficient to loop spacetime is conducive to life processes.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Barcs

There is absolutely zero evidence that any simpler form of self replicating life than the one in the OP ever existed.

How do you explain this?


It's explained by how the process of per-mineralization works. Not everything is preserved and the simpler the organism is, the less likely it is for fossilization to occur. For the majority of evidence of ancient Archaea, they don't actually find fossilized remains, they find chemical signatures in the rock that show that the organisms had been there.


As Miller-Urey exposed, there is no "life magic" chemistry. The chemical signatures don't actually tell us if those chemicals were organized by life or if they arose by environmental chemical reactions. And complex chemicals like DNA, RNA and its analogues, just won't last in even highly preservative environments.


Not having the fossilized remains of ancient organisms and relying on the chemical signatures they leave behind only shows that Archaea were present


It doesn't. The generation of such archaea must have been a rare occurrence because it is now (by experiment). The non-biological generation of amino acids is a common occurrence (by experiment). There so much more 'noise' in the data that it is absurd to draw conclusion that archaea produced the chemistry.


, not how complex or simple the organisms were. The Archaea shown in the OP are from modern examples, not 3.5 BA or earlier as they try to claim. We only know that there was simple forms of life dating back that far, not how complex they were so the premise that we don't have an example of a simpler life form isn't the same thing as a simpler precursor not existing. There is plenty of evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis that implies that there were RNA based organisms prior to DNA based organisms.


The interpretation of the actual evidence is highly speculative and work on chemical abiogenesis has had some wins but is by no means end-to-end successful in establishing proof.


It also doesn't mean that there was no other molecular engine, only that carbon based life relying on DNA is what has survived until this day. Is this all hypothetical? Absolutely. But I find it ironic that the people who protest against science so much, qualifying their position by claiming that science is blind and only works to prop up preconceived notions while ignoring all other possibilities, are themselves ignoring any possibility other than more informed by their faith. Irony is a beautiful thing sometimes.


Science is based upon observation, hypothesization and experimental test. All the steps are required for something to be called "science", anything less is pseudo-science.

edit on 7/9/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The amount of Gman personalities this site harbours is amazeballs!!



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

A well reasoned OP. With information at our fingertips we get to study and question what has been imposed upon Society from without. Whether it be Evolution or some from of intervention by gods or even advanced species that have been instrumental in seeding life.

I get that some cannot find meaning to their lives without belief in a higher spiritual force. Likewise the pursuit of Scientific experimentation devoid of ethics is detrimental to a well functioning society.

We have as in the past entered dark ages from one perspective. Man is degraded to tinker with what he will create in his own image.

Exciting times and yet dangerous. Time will tell how this will play out.

Will we be culled by the elite so they can have the planet to themselves?
Will Enki/Enlil type gods battle and wipe the planet and have a reset?



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You haven't really addressed the fact that entropy should have throughout the aeons reduced the Universe to a state of silence



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I doubt that the environment sufficient to loop spacetime is conducive to life processes.

I disagree. Certainly not a black hole that spaghettifies everything. Just a void. Just a place in space where there is nothing for just a tiny instant, big enough to slide something through. Like a hole in a sponge that will go all the way through if you follow all the twists and turns. That will take a bit of bacteria anywhere in the universe.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You haven't really addressed the fact that entropy should have throughout the aeons reduced the Universe to a state of silence

Life fights entropy. Thought creates form, which also fights it.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   


I therefore contemplated the perpetual nothingness that awaited me. Such is the logical dead end of evolution.


That isn't a logical dead end- it's an emotional one maybe, but that has nothing to do with the likelyhood of it being true.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

Pretty sure Mycoplasma bacteria is a simpler form of life then what is suggested in the OP




The smallest mycoplasma genome is still 580,000 base pairs, still an unimaginable hurdle for random chance to cross. They also rely on more complex living organisms to exist, making them exempt from being a candidate for the first life form.


None of them would ever write a thread or even make a suggestion such as this thread does... or his previous one for that matter


I used empirical fact throughout the OP and watched my words carefully. You just don't like the conclusions I drew at the end, which is fine, because that was my opinion. The rest prior to that was all fact to the extent of our current ability to measure biology.


Which brings us back to my orginal statement... science is wrong because God did it... that is the basis for every single one of these threads...


I did not use that logic once in the OP. I cited all examples from basic biology. This sounds like you are the one who is biased.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


I did not use that logic once in the OP. I cited all examples from basic biology. This sounds like you are the one who is biased.


As I've stated... it doesn't matter IF its stated...

Its obviously implied... because its the same people writing these threads




posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

As I've stated... it doesn't matter IF its stated...

Its obviously implied... because its the same people writing these threads





I used objective biology to convey my point.
edit on 7-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Unfortunately I am not a biologist, so I have no horse in this race... I know little about evolution, unlike many other members who do... but if I wanted to it would be quite easy to read a bit on the subject a respond accordingly.. I don't find it necessary because other members know evolutionary theory far better then I...

Though as I've said, I and probably most of the others responding in this thread know the motives behind it

God is right, science is wrong... which is fine IF you choose to believe that...

I just don't reject science in place of religion
as a bunch of you tend to



edit on 7-9-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Information still exists in systems, especially mathematically organized ones such as our universe, regardless of if it is observed.


I would tend to favour who you responded to. You ignore the simple fact that Maths is an abstraction.

The 20 trees in my backyard are described as 20 because I have given meaning to differentiating the plural from singular. The trees exist irrespective of my cataloging them.



Information still exists in systems, especially mathematically organized ones such as our universe


It is information when we extract the data and organize it. The Universe being organized is a human-centric view. I suspect this is a philosophical statement more than a precise definition.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

I agree - I see life in many variants everywhere.




Thought creates form, which also fights it.


A yin-yang conundrum?



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

God is right, science is wrong...


I never said any scientific facts were wrong.


I just don't reject science in place of religion
as a bunch of you tend to


That is an untrue generalization. I accept empirical science - I used it to make my point in the last 3 threads I made. The true tragedy is rejecting empirical science for theoretical science.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join