Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Well its like a lego toy being assembled by shaking the pieces in a bag suze. Now if you think that is far fetched, then we have to figure that "spark" of life, just what is it exactly.

It's not far-fetched when such pieces are constantly interacting anyway. If the lego pieces would constantly interact you can imagine all sorts of things would be made.

In the 50's the Miller–Urey experiment was conducted. What was proved was that organic mater in primordial conditions will form all sorts of complex compounds. Given the vastness of the oceans and time that went by while earth had these conditions, it's hard to think a functioning, replicating compound didn't generate.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard

Well its like a lego toy being assembled by shaking the pieces in a bag suze. Now if you think that is far fetched, then we have to figure that "spark" of life, just what is it exactly.

It's not far-fetched when such pieces are constantly interacting anyway. If the lego pieces would constantly interact you can imagine all sorts of things would be made.

but what makes them LIVE.

what IS life that is what I think is more a consternation

reply to post by Aermacchi

but what makes them LIVE.

Simple.

MRSGREN

Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, Nutrition.

The first time that these things were fulfilled, life existed. Life/biology on it's simplest/purest/smallest scale = organic chemistry.

Of course the thing generated that lead to life would not have technically have been alive for some time, similar to a virus, not all the requirements for the definition of life were met.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well its like a lego toy being assembled by shaking the pieces in a bag suze. Now if you think that is far fetched, then we have to figure that "spark" of life, just what is it exactly.

... like a bag of lego where almost all the lego pieces can constantly attach to each other and in turn change their chemical properties.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Well its like a lego toy being assembled by shaking the pieces in a bag suze. Now if you think that is far fetched, then we have to figure that "spark" of life, just what is it exactly.

It's not far-fetched when such pieces are constantly interacting anyway. If the lego pieces would constantly interact you can imagine all sorts of things would be made.

In the 50's the Miller–Urey experiment was conducted. What was proved was that organic mater in primordial conditions will form all sorts of complex compounds. Given the vastness of the oceans and time that went by while earth had these conditions, it's hard to think a functioning, replicating compound didn't generate.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Actually, It's hard to thing to imagine when you consider the vast amount of interactions involved and the fact that everything has to be perfect for life to form.

Look up the math. Mathematicians disagree with science over this.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by B.A.C.


BAC....come on!!!!

A bag of Legos????


Has nothing to do with abiogenisis!!!!

'Lego' blocks don't interact in the same way that proteins do!!!

reply to post by B.A.C.


Trying one more time.....

IF Abiogenesis did NOT happen, then we would not be here discussing it, at this very moment!

Now, try to wrap your head around THAT for about ten minutes, before you respond....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

BAC....come on!!!!

A bag of Legos????


Has nothing to do with abiogenisis!!!!

'Lego' blocks don't interact in the same way that proteins do!!!

I agree.

Why did you think I supported that view???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Trying one more time.....

IF Abiogenesis did NOT happen, then we would not be here discussing it, at this very moment!

Now, try to wrap your head around THAT for about ten minutes, before you respond....

I tried but I still couldn't wrap my head around it.

OK so there is no proof that Abiogenesis happened.

BUT it must have happened, or else why would we be here?

LMAO read that statement a few times, then get back to me.

reply to post by B.A.C.


BECAUSE, Mr. BAC

A bag full of Legos is NOT the same as an entire PLANET, with a mostly Oceanic surface.....and the billions or trillions of options of molecules, as they attempt to combine and re-combine.....and life eventually spawns....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

BECAUSE, Mr. BAC

A bag full of Legos is NOT the same as an entire PLANET, with a mostly Oceanic surface.....and the billions or trillions of options of molecules, as they attempt to combine and re-combine.....and life eventually spawns....

I agree. Like I said, show me where I agreed with the Lego thing.

You just like to argue LOL

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C......you argued just two posts up!!!

Look....I'm not trying to 'influence' you.....

IF you have Faith, well....then you have your Faith!!!

Believe in Christ, or Buddha, or whatever!!!!

I just know that my Brain is able to see reason.....it is THAT simple!

No need to have some 'belief' in an imaginary 'god'....not for me, at any rate.

I'd rather bask in the the incredivble complexity of the Universe....and not because some 'god' created it....because it just....IS!!!!!

Far more powerful, to me.....

EDIT...and I made a typo....didn't change it....so there!





[edit on 3/7/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

B.A.C......you argued just two posts up!!!

Look....I'm not trying to 'influence' you.....

IF you have Faith, well....then you have your Faith!!!

Believe in Christ, or Buddha, or whatever!!!!

I just know that my Brain is able to see reason.....it is THAT simple!

No need to have some 'belief' in an imaginary 'god'....not for me, at any rate.

I'd rather bask in the the incredivble complexity of the Universe....and not because some 'god' created it....because it just....IS!!!!!

Far more powerful, to me.....

EDIT...and I made a typo....didn't change it....so there!





[edit on 3/7/0909 by weedwhacker]

No I didn't argue 2 posts up.

I said:

I agree.

I agree that a bag of legos has NOTHING to do with Abiogenesis AND that it's a poor way of describing it. Show me where I've said different? Or anything about "Legos" in this thread for that matter.

You wanna argue because of my belief and not on any points. It's that simple. Your rhetoric proves it.

Great I respect your belief.

I won't treat you any different because our beliefs differ.

Sound reasonable?

Can you do the same?

Thanks.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
It’s a conspiracy against “religion” because saying that “inorganic matter randomly became alive” is just as credible as saying “the flying spaghetti monster created life.”

I think the 'randomly became alive' is really a strawman, J.

What you really mean is undirected by the hand of a magic man. For all we know abiogenesis might be inevitable under suitable conditions. We'd need to see what we find elsewhere in the universe.

Chemistry isn't really random. Each time I add HCl to NaOH, I keep getting tasty chips when I sprinkle the product on them.

Mel i was siting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that post. I was hoping to be insightful, but was attempting to be comical more than anything else.

My point illustrated in a more serious fashion . . .

There seems to be 2 general possibilities for how life started.

Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature

Super naturalist:

something made it happen (possibly with intent), by supernatural means, or natural means we are not privy to.


thoughts?



[edit on 3/7/2009 by JPhish]

I personally think that there's a lot to the RNA world hypothesis.

Originally posted by JPhish
Mel i was siting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that post. I was hoping to be insightful, but was attempting to be comical more than anything else.

My point illustrated in a more serious fashion . . .

Fair enough.

There seems to be 2 general possibilities for how life started.

Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature

Super naturalist:

something made it happen (possibly with intent), by supernatural means, or natural means we are not privy to.

thoughts?

OK, what gets me is the reliance on stating the naturalist category 'happens by chance'. Again, is it chance that stars go nova producing more complex elements? And so is it really chance that elements bind to form more complex molecules?

It just feeds the rather inane and pathetic probability arguments I see posted around. What you all really mean is that there is no obvious telic entity providing motivation/purpose.

I can hang with an element of chance in there. But chemistry is more than chance binding of elements into molecules, and it is quite possible that it is actually inevitable that replicating molecules/organisms form from simpler components under certain conditions.

At this point we are relying on n=1. So it's hard to know how 'lucky' the formation of life was on earth at this moment. And uncovering potential pathways to life is an area of research, but we have few remnants of this process (cf. evolution) to give us guidance in those efforts.

In the supernatural category, the 'natural means not privy to' would just be naturalist, no?

But, at the heart of the issue, yeah, we have natural means and the possibility for superatural means. I know which side my bets lie, not really needing to rely on personal biases/ideology, just a good dose of historical knowledge and the retreat of god-gap stuffing. Which has tended to be nothing more than a place-holder waiting for the light of science to pierce the fog of ignorance.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by JPhish


Or perhaps the system was set up in such a way that life would result. It need not be just created or random, one or the other. Dualism is not all there is.

Just my two cents.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


My thoughts exactly. Why does it have to be one or the other: God or nature? The supernatural vs. science? Abiogenesis doesn't have to be thought of as excluding God. Maybe, it could even be thought of as proving God. (I'm using the word "God" here in a very loose sense.) As complex a process as abiogenesis is, seemingly such a longshot, maybe it wasn't a random event, maybe something gave it a little nudge...Well, I like to think so.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Don't you believe in abiogenesis?
Be honest... You just believe there was one more variable in the equation - God.
Even the Bible says that he formed life from the dust of the Earth.
That's life from non-life. Abiogenesis.
What you are really concerned about is that we left out God in the equation.

I believe that the Universe caused abiogenesis.
You believe that God caused abiogenesis.

And if God DID cause abiogenesis, don't you think there was science behind it, just as there is science behind a rainbow which God supposedly made?

And if that's the case, could we not unravel abiogenesis just as we have unraveled the mysterious rainbow which once seemed so mystical?

Originally posted by JPhish
Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature

I don't think 'chance' is the right word.
Everything works on cause/reaction.
And because everything works on cause/reaction, there is always a reason behind it.
The fact that we don't know the reason gives the illusion of chance.

Example:
The fact that many animals have 2 eyes, 2 ears, and 4 limbs would appear to be chance - until you understand that we all evolved from a similar source. Once you understand that, it's not chance at all... just cause/reaction.

While I understand what you are saying, it's not really fair to say "chance" - because we don't understand the cause/reaction yet. It sends the wrong message, and creationists will usually misunderstand that word.
Replace the word chance with "unknown natural causes" and I'll agree with that statement.