Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been watching this discussion with interest, and I think I would go one further. I think Abiogenesis is not even a hypothesis, it is merely a label for the observation that the evidence we have points to life emerging from non-life in some way. Even if one chosen some sort of panspermia type explanation (that life is seeded here from outer space) at some point it had to come from somewhere, so at some point we still have non-life producing life.
-NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Thank you. You said it much better than I did.
It is a concise description that seems to apply to most of the so-called "emergent" explanations for our observations in science. They are so frequently paraded as actual "scientific" explanations that many people do not even know there is a difference.
I have been watching this discussion with interest, and I think I would go one further. I think Abiogenesis is not even a hypothesis, it is merely a label for the observation that the evidence we have points to life emerging from non-life in some way.
I don't know if I would agree this statement as it seems to imply that we have no clue as to the mechanism of emergence, which is not entirely true. There are at least theoretical scenarios, even if we have been unable to replicate the phenomenon. It doesn't take much for an idea to qualify as an hypothesis, and I think abiogenesis meets the criteria.
That said, if your ultimate point is that it is still a long way from being established, I would agree. I would add that in a sense abiogenesis is not a single hypothesis, but really a group of hypotheses, each of which suggests a more-or-less distinct mechanism.
Quote:
Not only that, but most critics of abiogenesis are not criticizing abiogenesis, per say. A literalist interpretation of Genesis requires abiogenesis! The real criticism is that we limit the scientific mechanism for abiogenesis to things that science can actually investigate, natural phenomena. After all Genesis proposes that man came from dirt, clearly abiogenesis, but the mechanism was the supernatural power of God, also known as "Magic!"
I think this is a great point. Almost everyone involved in this discussion (including our Creationist friends) believes that life came from non-life (abiogenesis). What we are really arguing is the mechanism...whether it was a thermodynamically driven natural process, or a divinely driven supernatural process.
(1) theistic evolution - evolution and indeed life from non -life happened, but because it is impossible, naturally, God had to have done it. This is reasonably sound and the evolutionary case is based on arguing that it is theoretically possible and the circumstantial evidence suggests did happen, makes life without God a rather better theory than theistic evolution.
(2) life from non life is impossible. Therefore, evolution could not and did not happen. A bit of a rhetorical leap, and rather uses irreducible complexity not so much to argue that God needed to intervene to allow a bacillus to develop flagelli, but that eveolution could not and did not happen. This is a far less coherent and insupportable argument than theistic evolution and is pretty much the line of Genesis - literalist YE creationists.
It should be observed, that neither type realize this, but just stick at 'abiogenesis/evolution cannot happen (naturally/without God) and therefore evolution is not true.' That's as far as they think.
Well, Arequipa, again, most people here do not seem to understand the first thing about Abiogenesis.
Somehow, in spite of the limited thinking of a the less educated, organic molecules CAN evolve and form from Inorganic compounds. eScienceCommons: Peptides may hold 'missing link' to life
It can, and does, and did happen ! The understanding of catalysts, chemicals which, under certain circumstances, which accelerates a rate of chemical change, while remaining itself unaffected, describes and demonstrates how this is so.
The best places to read up on this is in the journals, especially those of chemistry, biology and particle physics. Not casual reading for someone who states 'The Bible is all I need" and probably incomprehensible to that level of education anyway.
That said, if your ultimate point is that it is still a long way from being established, I would agree. I would add that in a sense abiogenesis is not a single hypothesis, but really a group of hypotheses, each of which suggests a more-or-less distinct mechanism.
Yes and no. My point is abiogenesis is an umbrella term that encompasses many, often incompatible hypotheses, so it is is a mistake to talk about it as a single thing. Abiogenesis is a label we use to describe what appears to have happened, the various hypotheses are how we try to understand it. I am in no way trying to detract from the work being done in this area. I think science has gone a long way toward developing feasible mechanisms for this, we just have a bit more to go. But, to argue, "Abiogenesis: yes or no?" seems to miss the reality of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker
I think this is a great point. Almost everyone involved in this discussion (including our Creationist friends) believes that life came from non-life (abiogenesis). What we are really arguing is the mechanism...whether it was a thermodynamically driven natural process, or a divinely driven supernatural process.
And this is exactly my point. The question is not, "abiogenesis: yes or no?", it is "abiogenesis: magic or natural process?" By its very nature, science can only answer with the latter. It isn't a conspiracy of atheists trying to destroy the Bible, it is simply that the only scientific answer is that abiogenesis happened through natural processes. The various hypotheses are an attempt to find out exactly how it happened.
If theists wish to change this, all they have to do is sustantiate the existence and actions of a god using the scientific method. Once science can test, measure, falsify, and model gods, they can be included in scientific theories, but until then...
Well, Arequipa, again, most people here do not seem to understand the first thing about Abiogenesis.
Somehow, in spite of the limited thinking of a the less educated, organic molecules CAN evolve and form from Inorganic compounds. eScienceCommons: Peptides may hold 'missing link' to life
It can, and does, and did happen ! The understanding of catalysts, chemicals which, under certain circumstances, which accelerates a rate of chemical change, while remaining itself unaffected, describes and demonstrates how this is so.
The best places to read up on this is in the journals, especially those of chemistry, biology and particle physics. Not casual reading for someone who states 'The Bible is all I need" and probably incomprehensible to that level of education anyway.
Very informative. A creationist would probably say it isn't proof that it happened. I would say that it is another bit of hard evidence that tilts the balance from very possible to Highly probable - for me, anyway.
Indeed. And as I seem to keep saying on a few threads today, science is HEAVILY about prediction. One of the predictions one makes by going back through the evolution chain is that at some time these single celled organisms that were the precurrsor of all life must have come into being.
And one way this can happen is for inorganic compounds to form organic molecules. So we predict that if our Theories are correct then when we go to test this idea, it will be found to be true.
And as KingCat pointed out, the prediction was born out and verified. Inorganic compounds can and do evolve and form into Organic molecules.
The problem then of course is the creationists want to talk about science, and judge science, but not do it by the standards, methodologies and measures OF science. So when something as powerful of prediction verifies a Theory they do not like.... they start talking the talk of science but applying a whole different swatch of standards and measures. Their own.
Indeed. And as I seem to keep saying on a few threads today, science is HEAVILY about prediction. One of the predictions one makes by going back through the evolution chain is that at some time these single celled organisms that were the precurrsor of all life must have come into being.
And one way this can happen is for inorganic compounds to form organic molecules. So we predict that if our Theories are correct then when we go to test this idea, it will be found to be true.
And as KingCat pointed out, the prediction was born out and verified. Inorganic compounds can and do evolve and form into Organic molecules.
The problem then of course is the creationists want to talk about science, and judge science, but not do it by the standards, methodologies and measures OF science. So when something as powerful of prediction verifies a Theory they do not like.... they start talking the talk of science but applying a whole different swatch of standards and measures. Their own.
Inorganic compounds being combined under strict laboratory conditions, and creating organic molecules is not the same as life happening accidentally.
And as KingCat pointed out, the prediction was born out and verified. Inorganic compounds can and do evolve and form into Organic molecules.
Hello Nozzferrahhtoo and LargeKingCat.
Not to be overly critical, but by the popular use of the terms, I think what you are saying here is that organic molecules evolved into biomolecules rather than inorganics into organics...unless you are specifically addressing the conversion of CO, CO2 or (arguably) carbonates and oxylates. If it is the latter then carry on, although I would point out that such conversions were unlikely in any case if the early atmosphere was indeed reducing (which is still debated).
In the end, I am not trying to be the nomenclature police, I am just trying to ensure clarity.
Inorganic compounds being combined under strict laboratory conditions, and creating organic molecules is not the same as life happening accidentally.
Hello again Pastor Vizio.
Welcome back to the thread. Did you return to address my most recent questions to you? I would refer you to post #124 on page 13.
Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
