Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So, in the meantime, feel free to go with "God did it."

Good enough attitude. I guess. The problem is that many who take it reject an awful lot of science. And that's not good.

originally posted by: Barcs
No. I'm saying the original formation of life is not the same process as the evolution of life. Evolution did not exist until replicating life emerged, which wasn't caused by evolution itself, unless you are simply referring to RNA becoming DNA.

That's not what Abiogenesis scientist propose.

Hypotheses are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. 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"

Source: Bahadur, Krishna (1973). "Photochemical Formation of Self–sustaining Coacervates" (PDF). Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy. 39B (4): 455–467. ISSN 0370-0046. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 October 2013.
Bahadur, Krishna (1975). "Photochemical Formation of Self-Sustaining Coacervates". Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. 130 (3): 211–218. doi:10.1016/S0044-4057(75)80076-1. OCLC 641018092. PMID 1242552.

originally posted by: Barcs
Watch the video. It was explained very well, way better than I can explain it. Complex molecules have been shown to form and increase complexity in multiple environments.

It basically repeating what wikipedia already stated. Nothing new. As I already point out current model of Abiogenesis theory is still largely based on Alexander Oparin and by J. B. S. Haldane Framework - which rely on Molecular Evolution, hence you get all these complexity over time. Yet, as Bernal put it; Bernal regarded the third stage – discovering methods by which biological reactions were incorporated behind a cell's boundary – as the most difficult.

No Protein discovered yet. Let alone how these protein supposedly combine with lipids and Nucleic acid ( DNA and RNA ) biopolymers. And this are just basic structure of ALL organic matter. We haven't raise reproduction issue yet. All this process have to be completed almost instantly when water and oxygen become available. Which is why I said in my earlier post that life on earth is not possibly originated from Earth.

originally posted by: Barcs
That isn't a research paper, it's an article.

This paper is published in the journal BioEssays. To request a copy contact Ben Norman on +44 (0) 1243 770 375 or [email protected]

Full Citation

Nick Lane, John F. Allen and William Martin, ‘How did LUCA make a living? Chemiomosis in the origin of life,’ BioEssays, Wiley-Blackwell, February 2010, DOI: 10.1002/bies.200900131

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

www.wiley.com...

originally posted by: Barcs
And speaking of Mars, I think it's only a matter of time before life or remnants of it are discovered there.

Mars was a fail experiment. It doesn't has sufficient gravitational force and iron core to generate magnetic field and to support atmosphere. But yes, I dont doubt Mars could have possibly house microscopic life, at least.

originally posted by: Barcs
Explaining god and the bible with "magic" is exactly the same as believing a giant space turtle caused the expansion of the universe. It's not an explanation, it's a belief based on an unknown gap of scientific knowledge. It doesn't matter how you fill it, it's a complete guess that has no explaining power at all.

And TONS of religious people agree with the big bang, it doesn't matter if it's part of the faith, it's part of what humans have learned about the universe.

Try to explain that to 4000 years ago ancient Indo-Aryan speaking Hindus Tribes. Let's see if they can understand everything you said.

Learning is a gradual process. God just don't teach advance science physic and cosmology to homo homo sapiens ancestors instantly.

Beside that, according to Hindu Vedas, we are not the first "Big Bang". The foundation of universe by Krishna's turtle make take several "Bing Bangs" eons ago. The ocean and the turtle could possible mean dark matter, dark energy and Cosmos Microwave Background we haven't understand yet.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phage

Hyper-dogmatic intransigent beliefs in conjectural theories is showing just as much faith in personal beliefs as I am in God.......

Exactly. "evolution did it", is the common supposition. 'we don't know how, but we know it did'. Evolutionary theory has become a religion that is intolerant of all contrary assertions.

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you going to link that species that has stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years or not?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you going to link that species that has stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years or not?

Maybe the Coelecanth? It was supposedly extinct for 66 millions years but then was found in the waters around South Africa alive and well, with the exact same morphology. This is a demonstration of the speculation and misnomers involved with organizing evolutionary theory. No change over "66 million years" insists evolution isn't happening, and the time scale is wayyyy off.

a reply to: EasternShadow

That's not what Abiogenesis scientist propose.

Equivocation fallacy and quoting concepts from the 1920s doesn't mean squat about today. "Chemical evolution of life" is NOT biological evolution aka modern evolutionary synthesis aka the theory of evolution. Evolution as a word has many definitions. If somebody says chemical evolution, they are referring to amino acids and complex molecules forming. The theory of evolution is a change in allele frequency usually caused by genetic mutations and natural selection. And clearly you didn't watch the video.

Mars was a fail experiment. It doesn't has sufficient gravitational force and iron core to generate magnetic field and to support atmosphere. But yes, I dont doubt Mars could have possibly house microscopic life, at least.

Wow, I guess you know more than all those Nasa astronauts and physicists that just built and sent a probe there. Most scientists agree that Mars very likely had a thicker atmosphere and oceans in the distant past. Magnetic field does not generate atmosphere, it protects it. Solar wind likely wiped away Mars atmosphere slowly over time after the plate tectonics stopped but there was a point before all of that happened.

a reply to: cooperton

So that is a no then? When you post one, post proof. Not "maybe". Proof is something that can be talked about. Just as your assertion of "no change in 66 million years" needs proof that nothing changed. I have bad news, there has been change, each and every generation, they don't clone themselves, and edit to make sure there is no change.

originally posted by: cooperton
Maybe the Coelecanth? It was supposedly extinct for 66 millions years but then was found in the waters around South Africa alive and well, with the exact same morphology.

Nope. Coelecanth is an entire ORDER of fish, not a single species. There are a bunch of species, most of which are extinct. It doesn't have the same exact morphology, its a completely different genus and species now. Comparatively humans are in the primate order, so it's like comparing modern humans to the rest of great apes (hominidae family).

This is a demonstration of the speculation and misnomers involved with organizing evolutionary theory. No change over "66 million years" insists evolution isn't happening, and the time scale is wayyyy off.

Again, you are dead wrong because of natural selection. Change is not guaranteed, especially if an organism is well adapted, most changes will be detrimental, so they don't chance much, but experience genetic drift.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you going to link that species that has stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years or not?

Maybe the Coelecanth? It was supposedly extinct for 66 millions years but then was found in the waters around South Africa alive and well, with the exact same morphology. This is a demonstration of the speculation and misnomers involved with organizing evolutionary theory. No change over "66 million years" insists evolution isn't happening, and the time scale is wayyyy off.

Completely incorrect. As Barcs points out, Coelacanth is an Order, not a Genus, not a species. There are actually 2 extent species of this order living in the Indian Ocean and while there are certainly morphological similarities to the extinct Coelacanth in the fossil record, they are not exactly the same or unchanged at all. You’re grasping at straws.

originally posted by: Barcs

Nope. Coelecanth is an entire ORDER of fish, not a single species.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Coelacanth is an Order, not a Genus, not a species.

Ok next time I refer to the living coelecanth, and by my reference to South Africa all scientists would know which I am referring to, I will call it Coelacanthiformes Latimeriidae Latimeria Chalumnae to appease your pedantics.

Again, you are dead wrong because of natural selection. Change is not guaranteed, especially if an organism is well adapted, most changes will be detrimental, so they don't chance much, but experience genetic drift.

I never said it was required, I never even said the word proof. All I said was that it insists that evolution isn't happening.

a reply to: Barcs

Genetic drift, has less to do with evolution and a lot more to do with random chances, species variation, and environmental adaptation.

Genetic drift isn't rewriting DNA-in fact DNA allows genetic drift to only go so far, it allows the alleles to bounce back and forth between dominate and recessive. But they had to already be there, the alleles that determine eye color is a good example.

Hybrids are another example, but eventually given enough time it self corrects.
That's why we don't have huge populations of Panthera Hybrids
Big Cat Hybrids

This actually defeats evolution and doesn't support it.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Genetic drift isn't rewriting DNA-in fact DNA allows genetic drift to only go so far, it allows the alleles to bounce back and forth between dominate and recessive. But they had to already be there, the alleles that determine eye color is a good example.

Bolded for emphasis.

eventually given enough time it self corrects.

As demonstrated with antibiotic resistance in bacteria. When an antibiotic-resistant population is created by exposure to an antibiotic, you can take away the antibiotic and eventually the population will resume normalcy and return back to being vulnerable to that antibiotic.

"It has been well-established that various species of bacteria, including E. coli, S. enterica and P. aeruginosa, exhibit resistance when they are exposed to successive steps of increasing concentration of antibiotics . This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations" Source

This is demonstrating that it is not evolution occurring, but rather it is reversible epigenetic upregulation of a particular gene. They found that the mechanism of antibiotic resistance involves an increased expression of efflux pumps that help detoxify the bacteria to the point of being antibiotic resistant.

originally posted by: cooperton
Ok next time I refer to the living coelecanth, and by my reference to South Africa all scientists would know which I am referring to, I will call it Coelacanthiformes Latimeriidae Latimeria Chalumnae to appease your pedantics.

Did you completely miss the point? Turbo said that there were unchanged species that remained the same species 100m+ years, so I asked him to name one. You chimed in with an entire order of fish, not an example of something remaining the same species or exactly the same. It failed on both counts thus is a complete red herring.

I never said it was required, I never even said the word proof. All I said was that it insists that evolution isn't happening.

You literally said: "No change over "66 million years" insists evolution isn't happening," and I explained why it does not insist that. Please try to keep up. It's like you are incapable of processing what somebody says and responding in context.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Genetic drift, has less to do with evolution and a lot more to do with random chances, species variation, and environmental adaptation.

All of those are part of evolution. Genetic drift is an evolutionary mechanism.

Genetic drift isn't rewriting DNA-in fact DNA allows genetic drift to only go so far, it allows the alleles to bounce back and forth between dominate and recessive. But they had to already be there, the alleles that determine eye color is a good example.

Genetic mutations still happen in those cases, so there is always a slight genetic variation over time, even in cases where organisms maintain similar traits and features for long periods. Even when they do, there is still always a difference from the original species to the modern one.

Hybrids are another example, but eventually given enough time it self corrects.
That's why we don't have huge populations of Panthera Hybrids
Big Cat Hybrids

This actually defeats evolution and doesn't support it.

How does that defeat evolution, LOL! Are you still unaware of what evolution is after all these years?

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Barcs
No. I'm saying the original formation of life is not the same process as the evolution of life. Evolution did not exist until replicating life emerged, which wasn't caused by evolution itself, unless you are simply referring to RNA becoming DNA.

That's not what Abiogenesis scientist propose.

Hypotheses are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. 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"

That's just semantics. Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution. They both use the same word "evolution", but they are two different things.

Evolution is a general term meaning "the gradual development of something (anything)", and a term that existed long before it was borrowed by the idea of biological evolution.

In general, the use of the word "evolution" for both concepts mean the same thing, but chemical evolution is NOT the same as biological evolution. That is to say, speciation and how one species can form from another is NOT what chemical evolution of life is about, nor vice-versa.

That would be like saying that the concepts in automobile mechanics can tell us how subatomic particles operate, just like quantum mechanics.

a reply to: Box of Rain

No chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution.

Chemial evolution can mean several things. I do not think you mean the "evolution of gas" in a reaction (gas is produced asa by product of the reaction). So I assume you mean the evolution of the molecules of life. DNA and RNA, Carbohydrates, and amino acids to eventually proteins. That would be the Chemical evolution of life. That would be single molecules. Chemistry as the whole deals with that.

The Biological evolution of life, would involve a multitude of molecules reacting. This is Biochemistry and Genetics. That is a different perspective, and not Semantically different.

If you don't know the difference between Biology and Chemistry, you perchance should not comment?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Box of Rain

No chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution.

Chemial evolution can mean several things. I do not think you mean the "evolution of gas" in a reaction (gas is produced asa by product of the reaction). So I assume you mean the evolution of the molecules of life. DNA and RNA, Carbohydrates, and amino acids to eventually proteins. That would be the Chemical evolution of life. That would be single molecules. Chemistry as the whole deals with that.

The Biological evolution of life, would involve a multitude of molecules reacting. This is Biochemistry and Genetics. That is a different perspective, and not Semantically different.

If you don't know the difference between Biology and Chemistry, you perchance should not comment?

Thank you for your explanation.

I was actually trying to make a case out of Chemical Evolution of Life, but Barcs seem to insist on Biological Evolution of Life as in modern evolutionary synthesis , which is surely a different matter. It's like we were talking a same coin but different side. I was arguing changes from non organic matter into organic matter.

originally posted by: Barcs
Equivocation fallacy and quoting concepts from the 1920s doesn't mean squat about today. "Chemical evolution of life" is NOT biological evolution aka modern evolutionary synthesis aka the theory of evolution. Evolution as a word has many definitions. If somebody says chemical evolution, they are referring to amino acids and complex molecules forming. The theory of evolution is a change in allele frequency usually caused by genetic mutations and natural selection. And clearly you didn't watch the video.

I like to see how those experiments being conducted under supposed assumption Early Earth condition, without oxygen. Like The Miller–Urey experiment with Diagrams. But all your video show is just comment on how those experiments supposedly change amino acids INSTANTLY into protein. Wow.

originally posted by: Barcs
Wow, I guess you know more than all those Nasa astronauts and physicists that just built and sent a probe there. Most scientists agree that Mars very likely had a thicker atmosphere and oceans in the distant past. Magnetic field does not generate atmosphere, it protects it. Solar wind likely wiped away Mars atmosphere slowly over time after the plate tectonics stopped but there was a point before all of that happened.

And how is this atmosphere supposedly thicker with almost no magnetic field to protect it? Do you know Mars composition and formation?

a reply to: EasternShadow

Urey-Miller's Amino Acids was a flaw experiment. Early Earth's volcanic atmosphere Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen and water vapors could not produce amino acids.

No matter how many molecules you produce, you cannot just put them together or bind together and instantly create a living cell. It's totally unrealistic.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Yeah sorry bud, that video is full of crap. It's made by creationists trying to misrepresent science as always.

Nice straw man though about throwing molecules together and poofing into a cell. That's totally what happened. NOT.

Jonathan Wells is a member of the Discovery Institute and a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and a prominent advocate of intelligent design, as well as the author of Icons of Evolution and Regnery Publishing's Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.[1]

Along with Michael Behe, he is one of the few in the movement with demonstrably legitimate credentials (he has a Ph.D. in biological science). Wells completed the Ph.D. for the sole purpose of "debunking" evolution.[2] Despite his credentials, he has been caught bull#ting or outright lying on many occasions, and his books are generally considered garbage by mainstream science. Wells has also lent his support to the cause of AIDS denialism.[3]

He also claims to expose the "lie about overwhelming amounts of evidence for evolution" rationalwiki.org...

Sorry, he's full of it. He's just another preacher masquerading as a scientist.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
I like to see how those experiments being conducted under supposed assumption Early Earth condition, without oxygen. Like The Miller–Urey experiment with Diagrams. But all your video show is just comment on how those experiments supposedly change amino acids INSTANTLY into protein. Wow.

Instantly? What are you talking about? You aren't referencing anything in the video. Early earth did not have O2 in the air. O2 is a byproduct of photosynthesis. Yeah, those experiments are done without O2 in the air. Oceans DO contain oxygen, however, so it was definitely there.

And how is this atmosphere supposedly thicker with almost no magnetic field to protect it? Do you know Mars composition and formation?

Mars used to have an electromagnetic shield and plate tectonics. No reason to think life couldn't develop at that time. I guess we'll find out eventually.