OK - It's that time again - time to "Deny Ignorance".
So the question is:
Is the abioGenesis hypothesis - scientific or just a silly idea?
Based on established facts, logic and common sense - I can confidently say it's just a silly idea! Or to be precise an idea based on a silly ancient
philosophy masquerading as science.
No way you say? Well then read on and judge for yourself!
Fact is the very definition and the origin of this hypothesis will show you exactly just that - a silly old baseless idea.
According to various websites and dictionaries and encyclopedias - Abiogenesis comes down to this simple definition / explanation:
Definition for abiogenesis:
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
As to its origin - biology-online.org explains it simply this way:
(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non
From a more technical perspective (written in somewhat lame imitation of the book of Genesis), the book "EARTH SCIENCE - The Story of O2" - by
Richard A. Kerr June 2005 explains the abioGenesis hypothesis this way:
In the beginning, Earth was devoid of oxygen, and then life arose from nonlife. As that first life evolved over a billion years, it began to
produce oxygen, but not enough for the life-energizing gas to appear in the atmosphere. Was green scum all there was to life, all there ever would be?
Apparently, yes, unless life and nonlife could somehow work together to oxygenate the planet from the atmosphere to the deep sea.
…..Historians of oxygen have always agreed on one thing: Earth started out with no free oxygen--that is, diatomic oxygen, or O2. It was all tied up
in rock and water. For half a century, researchers have vacillated over whether the gases that were there favored the formation of life's starting
materials (see sidebar, p. 1732). Without free oxygen, in any case, the first life that did appear by perhaps 3.5 billion years ago had to "breathe"
elements such as iron, processing them to gain a mere pittance of energy. For decades, scientists have argued about just how long the planet remained
anoxic, and thus home to nothing but tiny, simple, slow-living microorganisms. (p 1730—1732) "
For an extensive explanation see the following link:
There you go.
So in short - Abiogenesis is a "hypothesis" based on "ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter" or "how
biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes".
As already mentioned this idea is not new. In fact it goes even way back before the time when it was taught by Greek philosophers such as Anaxagoras,
Empedocles and Aristotle. It goes all the way back to ancient Egypt. Then was later on (in the 17th century) picked up again by scientists like
Francis Bacon and William Harvey, and then further advanced by the discovery of bacteria (as seemingly appearing from nowhere). Only to be debunked a
century later by Dr. Louie Pasteur when he proved scientifically beyond doubt that life comes only from life.
Today, this silliness still abound because even though it's still the same baseless unproven hypothesis, die-hard proponents of this idea continue to
accept it as fact. Just like the flat-earthers,they blindly accept it as if it actually happened absent of true scientific evidence. They shrug off
and ridicule those who reject it and bully those who question it. I guess they have no choice but to do so. They have no choice but to hold unto it -
no matter how silly it is - because not doing so will render the evolution theory foundationless (although some try to separate the two as though they
are not related).
Still, no matter how they defend it, the truth is the truth. This hypothesis is still a silly philosophical idea masquerading as science. It is made
more sillier today by technological advancements. Inspite of the latest and greatest instruments and advancing knowledge in the field of science,
scientists had not come up with a clear and logical answers to such simple questions as the ones listed below (I'll just mention a few out of
hundreds to keep it short).
1) What was Earth's primitive atmosphere like?
Scientists admit that NO one really knows what the earth's true primitive atmosphere was like since no one was present when this supposedly
"spontaneous generation" occurred. All they can do is - speculate. And speculate they did even if the idea is so silly. Case in point: "EARTH
SCIENCE - The Story of O2" or the "Selfish Gene" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, and many more.
2) Was there a guiding causal power / force behind the emergence of the elemental materials?
That is, if such atmosphere did exist (as speculated by scientists), who or what was responsible for controlling the proper mixture of the gases? Who
was controlling the destructive forces that created the gases? In other words, who or what was protecting the newly formed amino acids so that they
are not destroyed by the very forces and elements that created them? After all in the labs, the ONLY way to prevent these complex molecules from being
destroyed was to remove them from the very environment they were created in/from.
And then going further:
3) Why only left-handed molecules for life are used?
When amino acids are formed at random it was discovered that they come in two forms that are chemically the same. Interestingly one is a
“right-handed” molecule and the other a “left-handed” molecule. They are all mixed together, in about equal numbers of each kind. But in
living organisms only “left-handed” amino acids are used. So who or what was responsible for choosing the “left-handed” amino acids?
Furthermore there are literally hundreds if not thousands of amino acids. In fact the simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of
Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. So next obvious Q is:
4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?
Not only that the “left-handed” amino acids are picked from the "mixture of left and right-handed amino acids" but that they are placed in the
correct sequence to form the correct protein chain. If one of these amino acids is out of sequence or out place the result will be disastrous. ...