Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

That isn't an outcome. That would be a hypothesis, which you must have before any experiment or investigation.

nature
  –noun
the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

Are you seriously trying to say that life is unnatural or artificial?

We are living things made up from non-living matter, unless you would care to demonstrate electrons, protons and neutrons having a metabolism?


Hypothesis: This rock will fall when I drop it.
-experiment-
-results-
Conclusion: When I dropped this rock, it fell.

Hypothesis: This helium balloon will fall when I drop it.
-experiment-
-results-
Conclusion: When I dropped this balloon, it rose.

A hypothesis will never influence the outcome of a test.

Science is interested in looking at the facts and seeing how they fit together. Thus far science has shown that amino acids are naturally made on the planet as a result of simple chemical reactions. Science has shown that they self assemble into RNA in conditions found on Earth. RNA is a self replicating molecule and the basis of DNA and all life on Earth. Lipids naturally form membranes / bubble type structures because they have one end hydrophobic and the other end hydrophilic, cell membranes are essentially lipid membranes. I could go on but you probably aren't interested in millions of facts about evolution and biochemistry. Creationists are seemingly clueless about the MASSIVE amount of science and biochemistry facts that are the basis of modern biology and evolution.

Going from the early mix of amino acids and other naturally occurring chemicals on the planet to all life on the planet today is simply a case of joining up all the dots. The dots are getting more and more close as scientists discover new details every day. Creationists however chose to ignore all this and cling to ideas that none of this is true and that all life was created either 6,000 years ago or at some other time in the past.

The average creationist seems to think that evolution is some idle fantasy with no basis in reality whereas the opposite is true and the accumulated facts mean that evolution is a fact whether they like it or not. Creationist are getting desperate due to all the proof for evolution so they now invent the idea of intelligent design and a God of the gaps.

Even the Catholic church has been intelligent/educated enough to appreciate that evolution is a fact and intelligent design is bunkum, just as they acknowledged the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Note that science doesn't say anything about the existence or none existence of a God in any of this. Science only says that man and all the other life on the planet did not suddenly appear but that all life evolved over many millions of years by natural processes from naturally occurring molecules / chemicals and minerals.

If the fact of evolution is contrary to a persons religious beliefs then that is a matter for that person to reconcile and not a matter for science. Some Christians seem to be able to do this such as Orwell on this forum. Those who believe in the biblical God can either chose to acknowledge the facts about evolution and fit it in somehow with their belief system or go for the easy option and go into denial and pretend that evolution is just some vague theory and not true. Another coping strategy of creationists is to avoid learning the details of the science so they can still claim in their ignorance that evolution is not proven. If a persons religious beliefs require creationism to be true and evolution to be false, then they have built their beliefs on a house of cards.

So-called science has produced the computer on which you post you erudition.

The so-called science which you disrespect is backed up by over a century of solid observation and experiment. Science is not speculation in a cloud, it is hypothesis and rigorous testing (and sometimes falsification) of hypotheses. Experiment is where the rubber meets the road for science.

Religion on the other hand is vaporous and is based on hope, faith and other imaginary things. It is never grounded on measurable observable fact. Which is why I prefer solid science (particularly chemistry and physics) to your diaphanous hopes, wishes and faith. Wishful thinking will not pay the bills or fill one's plate for dinner. Wishful thinking will not cure or prevent diseases. Wishful thinking will not tell us how our physical bodies function. If you see a train coming at you, do not pray for it to disappear, rather get off the tracks.

ruveyn

When observable facts clash with religious beliefs which do people accept?

A wise person will adapt their beliefs to encompass the observable facts or discard those beliefs entirely if they are shown to be based on false foundations.

Observable facts on the other hand do not adapt or change themselves to accommodate religious beliefs.

Relating to science and theism in general:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8[/youtube]

Abiogenesis and theism:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo&feature=PlayList&p=FDD888B90F34F186&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4[/youtube]

You don't seem to know how the process works. The outcome has not been decided before it began, that was a working hypothesis. A reasonable one because it had been proven even before this that living matter is made up of the same stuff as non-living matter and its only the way that matter is put together that makes it different. It's also a hypothesis that could of been falsified. If these scientists had proven that the conditions of the early Earth did not allow abiogenesis then the hypothesis would be discarded and a new one would be proposed. Maybe it would of been one that says that life didn't start by a natural process or maybe that it started somewhere else and was brought here by a comet. The fact of the matter is that in testing their hypothesis, the scientists have shown that life could of started by a natural process due to special conditions that existed on the early Earth without any outside intervention so it is kept. As a matter of fact, what they found was a smoking gun. If these results are verified by future experiments then abiogenesis is pretty much proven.

Exciting times for molecular biologists. It is amazing how many pieces of the jigsaw of evolution have fallen into place in recent years. I think one of the difficulties explaining evolution to none scientists is that you can't just pick on one fact and say "here is definitive and easy to understand proof of evolution" - although the fossil record does that to some extent. People need to understand a whole range of facts from different scientific disciplines from geology, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, biology, biochemistry, palaeontology etc and then the picture of evolution falls into place. Rather like this image. Each dot is a separate observable fact. It is only when you look at them all together that you see the clear proof of evolution:



Unfortunately the average none-scientist doesn't have the educational background to see enough of the dots to see the big picture.

Argh tallyman, why post that?

It made me think, why post it, everything on the screen is made up of pixels anyway so its the same idea...

and then the realisation...

Dots making up dots making up dots making up dots.... and then... mona lisa.

Ahhhhh!

Evolution is just like that. Thousands of seemingly random scientific facts about this and that, some large, some trivial, but when viewed together they make complete sense.

Then it should be stated as such!

What third option might there be for someone such as myself? I do not see the need for or value of any evolution-versus-creation or creation-versus-evolution debate, and no true scientist would even think of entering into one. Only religious folks of whatever ilk, including the proponents of evolutionism, do that.

In any case, please know I always appreciate your posts so patiently made via dialup!

Whoa, my fellow! No erudition here! I simply said ignorance is perpetuated when an outcome has been decided even before the investigation begins ... and please forgive me for not realizing you had only meant to offer an hypothesis.



Whoa once again! Anyone in his or her right mind would disrespect mere "so-called science", and I personally greatly enjoy hearing the *real* stuff while refusing to let religious rhetoric and agenda-based spin confuse me.

I most certain do, and I do not assume a statement presents as a mere hypothesis when it has not been clearly stated as such!

Its a bit obvious that "Somehow life emerged from non living material by a natural process." wouldn't be the outcome of an investigation, because all it does is outline the question "how?".

Outcomes of tests are never so vague unless you do something really screwed up.

The original "Somehow life emerged from non living material by a natural process." wasn't in that context, you said that quote meant science involved deciding the outcome of tests before they were done. Science predicts what will happen and then afterwards says what happened and compares it to the prediction.

Why would you need to state that something is a hypothesis anyway? Its very very very obvious when something is hypothetical as opposed to something that is a result of a test.

When's the last time you did a titration or something?

Do you know much about AS/HFA?

I know nothing more about reading between the lines than I know about titrations!

Before the scientists could even begin to perform their RNA lab experiments, someone first had to make the beaker that represented planet earth, as well as the laboratory and everything that goes with it. Prodigious minds made that experiment possible, not chance.

And before RNA could begin to form in its “warm little pond,” the ultimate mind, who I believe is God, made planet earth possible, as well as everything in it.

Every experiment, as well as everything made, has to have someone behind it. Experiments simply can't make themselves happen out of nothing. This is simply beyond the bounds of possibility.