• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
5,410
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Well, according to creationists anyways. Apparently if you post a link to Nature articles regarding early self replicating nucleotides, that’s not evidence. Nor is evidence of protists or any other mechanism that has been biochemically observed.

Furthermore if you show a photo of hominid skulls arranged chronologically, that too is not evidence of common descent. Apparently that’s just variation in humans. As can be seen by comparing aboriginal Australians to Europeans.

I wonder if they would admit this version of evolution?

IMG_6963.jpeg
 
I was hoping this was a post by a creationist so I could have some fun. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation. ;)
 
The abiogenesis challenge is just another form of the "If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument. My response is a favorite quote from Cicero, "It is absurd to ignore the evidence which lies to our hand, and to demand evidence which cannot possibly be produced."

It is not required to explain, understand, or defend abiogenesis, in order to explain, understand, or defend evolutionary processes.
 
Both religious and non-religious believe life started at some point. It's not the evolutionary processes that's being challenged. It's the initial process, abiogenesis, which both sides of the argument are trying to explain - at best, hypothetically at least .
 
Both religious and non-religious believe life started at some point. It's not the evolutionary processes that's being challenged. It's the initial process, abiogenesis, which both sides of the argument are trying to explain - at best, hypothetically at least .
Nah, only one side is trying to explain it.

The other side just believes god did it, and has zero interest in how. In many sects, negative interest - asking "how?" is blasphemous.

If you are Ernst Blofeld, and you ask your minons "How was my supposedly impregnable fortress infiltrated by MI6?", you want to know which alarms were disabled and by what methods; Which locks were picked, and how; Which minions were persuaded to turn traitor, and by what arguments.

The minion who just says "James Bond did it", and expects you to accept that as a full and detailed report on the incident, is destined for a short and unexpected trip to the shark tank.

"How did X happen?" is NOT the same question as "Who did X?", and the idea that answering the second is a satisfactory resolution of the first is absurd.

"God did it" is not only not THE answer to "How did life begin?", it isn't even AN answer.
 
My response is life is a set of chemical processes, and natural spontaneous reactions occir.

You need a chemical mix and an energy source. Black smokers, underused galvanic vents are a good candidate. Heat and chancels. There are small organisms at the vents that live on chemicals.

There is nothing in science that precludes abiogenesis.


Organisms that live around hydrothermal vents don't rely on sunlight and photosynthesis. Instead, bacteria and archaea use a process called chemosynthesis to convert minerals and other chemicals in the water into energy. This bacterium is the base of the vent community food web, and supports hundreds of species of animals.
 
"My hypothesis involves natural processes and chemical combinations."
"We don't need that, because we have a book that gives us the answer."
"Doesn't that book also have a talking ass, a man who dies at age 969, a woman who turns into salt, a man who grazes on grass for seven years, and a god-man who sends demons into a herd of 2000 pigs, which then commit pig suicide? Why would I use that book for anything touching on biology?"
"Well, it's clear that you don't have faith, and that you have a mind-set which makes you reject the truth."
 
Well, according to creationists anyways. Apparently if you post a link to Nature articles regarding early self replicating nucleotides, that’s not evidence. Nor is evidence of protists or any other mechanism that has been biochemically observed.

Furthermore if you show a photo of hominid skulls arranged chronologically, that too is not evidence of common descent. Apparently that’s just variation in humans. As can be seen by comparing aboriginal Australians to Europeans.

I wonder if they would admit this version of evolution?

View attachment 46528

omg PONIES!!!
 
Didn't they discover RNA forms in lava rock when water rains or flows on it. These RNA can develop the ability to self replicate, a most basic living creature.
 

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that more amino acids were produced in the original experiment than Miller was able to report with paper chromatography.[6] While evidence suggests that Earth's prebiotic atmosphere might have typically had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex organic compounds, including amino acids, under varying conditions.[7] Moreover, researchers have shown that transient, hydrogen-rich atmospheres – conducive to Miller-Urey synthesis – would have occurred after large asteroid impacts on early Earth.

There are three choices. Something winked the universe into existence out of nothing, the universe appeared all by itself out of nothing , or we are the rpduct of natural causes stretichg back in tine forever.

We are one point in an infinite sequence of events.

While there may be e misting segments the fossil records and modern genetics inductee all life traces back to less cop[ex organisms. Common ancestors.

Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

About 20-60% of our genes can also be found in plants, depending on the species1. In comparison we share about 80% of our genes with mice2, and around 95% of our genes with chimpanzees1. Most of the genes that plants share with us turn sugars and proteins into energy.

We know that after mass exactions like the asteroid strike in Mexico evolution and adaption kicked in resulting in new species of flora and fauna.

The preponderance of the evidence leads to the concision abiogenisis occurred and all life evolved from early simple organisms.
 

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that more amino acids were produced in the original experiment than Miller was able to report with paper chromatography.[6] While evidence suggests that Earth's prebiotic atmosphere might have typically had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex organic compounds, including amino acids, under varying conditions.[7] Moreover, researchers have shown that transient, hydrogen-rich atmospheres – conducive to Miller-Urey synthesis – would have occurred after large asteroid impacts on early Earth.

There are three choices. Something winked the universe into existence out of nothing, the universe appeared all by itself out of nothing , or we are the rpduct of natural causes stretichg back in tine forever.

We are one point in an infinite sequence of events.

While there may be e misting segments the fossil records and modern genetics inductee all life traces back to less cop[ex organisms. Common ancestors.

Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

About 20-60% of our genes can also be found in plants, depending on the species1. In comparison we share about 80% of our genes with mice2, and around 95% of our genes with chimpanzees1. Most of the genes that plants share with us turn sugars and proteins into energy.

We know that after mass exactions like the asteroid strike in Mexico evolution and adaption kicked in resulting in new species of flora and fauna.

The preponderance of the evidence leads to the concision abiogenisis occurred and all life evolved from early simple organisms.
With regard to your three options about the universe, they all assume time pre-existed the universe. If you remove this assumption, then there was never nothing, and the universe and time co-exist.
 
Once again....

Scientifically time is a unit of measure along with meters and kilograms. The MKS meters-kilograms-seconds system that is theo foundation of the Systems International unit of measure.

Time is a measure of change of states of matter. Time is not some philosophical metaphysical abstraction, it is a physical measurement no different than meters and kilograms.

If casualty is true than something can not come from or go to nothing, Hence the universe always was and sways will be in a constantly changing set of conditions.

If you get rid of causality then you can imagine anything. Matter winking into existence from noting or a god.

Ab eternal inverse is what makes most sense to me.

Time and space are human inventions used to desribe reality...meters, kilograms, and seconds.
 
Measurements are arbitrary. Time and space, or more correctly spacetime, is very real and independent of human existence. Using time to measure things is a human practice, just like allocating a 1 to 10 rating for a movie. Causality only applies to things within the universe, not to the universe itself as it is acausal.
 
Back
Top Bottom