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.
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
Then we are in agreement. When/if abiogenesis can be replicated consistently then it will become a theory on how life formed here and possibly elsewhere.
dusty1
Yes
and it will be called by its proper term
Creation.
By who?
Agreed. But until that's the case, I have the right to remain skeptical. But a lot of people on here don't like that. They are already pushing it as being already true, and that's what I have a problem with...
AugustusMasonicus
vasaga
Then it must be true.
Then we are in agreement. When/if abiogenesis can be replicated consistently then it will become a theory on how life formed here and possibly elsewhere.
Actually... It kind of is. As soon as you set up conditions, it's not exactly spontaneously anymore.
Astyanax
reply to post by dusty1
Setting up the conditions for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter is not the same as actively transforming inanimate matter into living things.
dusty1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
By who?
By the scientists or corporation that comes up with the formula that creates life, of course.
It will become some entities proprietary product, that will be protected through legal means, and sold for profit.
It will then also be regulated and taxed by government.
Astyanax
reply to post by dusty1
Setting up the conditions for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter is not the same as actively transforming inanimate matter into living things.
vasaga
Agreed. But until that's the case, I have the right to remain skeptical. But a lot of people on here don't like that.
I do not think anyone would/should fault someone for being skeptical of a hypothesis since it obviously has not moved to the repeatable testing phase.
Words
reply to post by Astyanax
I enjoy the theory and I think it might just have some application, but it should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other mathematical formulas. The attempt to reduce the history of life, its cause, and the entire process of organic existence to a mathematical formula is simply wishful thinking, one that relies on a pythagorean superstition of numbers and other axiomatic assumptions.
There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.
LucidWarrior
reply to post by Astyanax
There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.
Which is the very reason I believe there is a Creator.
If we take our abiogenesis experiments and scale them up to the size of a planet,
and let the experiment run for a few hundred million years
and if after waiting all that time we still have no results in the soup,
I'll concede the non reality of abiogenesis.
However I think a good portion of the concern is for people who discount evolution
because they tie that theory to the abiogenesis hypothesis in an effort
to link two unrelated topics.
There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life.
Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and John Haldane (in 1925),
who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.
[25] According to them,
the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution,
and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution
dusty1
Chemical Evolution?
Apparently the abiogenesis models draw on the idea that molecular or chemical evolution took place.
But I thought you said evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated.
John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis in 1949 to refer to the origin of life,[26] and suggested that it occurred in three "stages": 1) the origin of biological monomers; 2) the origin of biological polymers; and 3) the evolution from molecules to cells. He suggested that evolution commenced between stage 1 and 2.
If we take our abiogenesis experiments and scale them up to the size of a planet, and let the experiment run for a few hundred million years and if after waiting all that time we still have no results in the soup, I'll concede the non reality of abiogenesis.
tie that theory to the abiogenesis hypothesis in an effort to link two unrelated topics.
Chemical and biological evolution are two separate topics
'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.' - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.
reply to post by Astyanax
England's hypothesis is not, I think, experimentally falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted on anything less than a planetary scale and over a period that can only be descrbed as epochal. And even then we could never be certain.
As a theoretical exercise, however, it is perfectly valid, and may be judged as such.