OK so I was right the author’s main point in that part of the article is that the probability is just less than what the creationists assert yet it’s still astronomically high and very statistically mathematically improbable thank you for that confirmation
So you agree that it’s more logical to believe that life comes from life than life comes from non life even abiogenesis itself defeats itself because after abiogenesis life only comes from life and can only come from life but in the far distant past it came from non life that inanimate became animate it sounds like more of a fairy tale than any religious story I’ve ever heard! wouldn’t you agree?
From what did you extract that conclusion?
Please take a moment to consider more thoroughly each statement I have made, and then formulate a response if you wish, rather than just ignoring what I write and then assigning beliefs and statements to me which I haven’t made.
That doesn’t make logical sense. Something can begin by a process that is different from how it then goes on to persist and sustain itself, and this does not entail that it “defeats itself”. You’re just not making any sense.
Like? More importantly, cite from the primary literature.
I don’t need to give you anything because its too obvious. There was a time when life did not exist, and there was a time when it did. Thus, it is a fact that life arose at some point in time in our natural history. Living organisms today are composed of several elements, all of which are found in the environment and subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry. This tells you that when the earliest life-like systems emerged, they did so from the chemical components of the natural environment. The carbon atoms that make up your cells are the same found in stardust. The hydrogen atoms that make up every single molecule of water in your body are the same as the hydrogen atoms found in the sun. That the first life-like systems emerged from inanimate matter is obvious even to the blind.
That’s when they are talking about the how of abiogenesis. Please cite these papers too.
I hope you know the author isn’t saying that carboxypeptidase was formed via random assembly of amino acids?
A simple Google search will reveal that every single provided link says that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact.
What is illogical about something having a start and then carrying on?
Yes. That seems simple enough. Both theists and non-theists can surely agree that living things have not always existed----they are not eternal—so there must have been some time(s) in the past when non-living ingredients came together and living things existed for the first time in the history of the universe.
Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.’ And it was so. (12) The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. — Genesis 1:11-12a (NIV)
“And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so.” ---- Genesis 1:24 (NIV)
Thus, the Bible says that the ERETZ (the land) produced living plants and living animals. That sure sounds to me like chemistry and physics doing what God intended for chemistry and physics to do. (No “poofing” required. The non-living ingredients of the soil together with energy from the sun produced living things.)
So I’ll say it again: Both theists and non-theists can agree that abiogenesis (living things from non-living ingredients) happened sometime in the world’s past.
Meanwhile, at this very moment I am looking out my window at plants and algae taking non-living chemicals and converting them into living biomasses. So it is not difficult to imagine sometime in the past when chemistry and physics did something similar to produce living things from non-living things for the first time.
Indeed, I would expect nothing less from a deity who is able to create a universe. If God can create a universe, why is it so hard to believe that he could create a universe of chemistry and physics which supports abiogenesis?
Yes, we can debate whether or not a creator-deity exists—but I find it hard to believe that anyone who affirms the existence of a creator-deity doubts that he could give us a universe where chemistry and physics produce biological organisms from non-living ingredients.
Theories are explanations. Explanations can also be facts, especially when they have withstood many years of falsification testing and lots of confirmatory observations.
Of course, evidence (data) are facts.
Yes, as a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, because I find abiogenesis so clearly described in Genesis 1 (see above), I just don’t see any conflict. In this case what the Bible says fits quite neatly into what I learn about the chemistry and physics related to biological life existing on earth.
Indeed. It makes no sense at all. People who read the early chapters of Genesis very literally—and thereby believe that God molded clay together and literally breathed into that dirt in an artificial respiration kind of way to make a human–nevertheless have no difficulty believing that the perpetuation of the human race comes by entirely different reproductive processes. (Nobody claims that such reproduction “defeats” the idea of God molding dirt into the form of Adam.)
No you’re the one making a claim that it’s a scientific fact therefore you would have to actually provide that since it’s the burden of proof would be upon that making the postulation also it’s not a scientific fact because life could have come from Life biogenesis not life from non-life or abiogenesis
That’s fine you’re entitled to your opinion however the mathematical probability and actual likelihood of that occurring is so astronomically low that it does take a great amount of “faith” to believe that
If it’s a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature how come it only occurred once in the distant past if it’s naturally arising through natural phenomenon it should still be occurring
So you think biological life has always existed?
How do you know that it only happened once?
Why? What is your logic? Lots of things can happen under particular conditions—but not keep happening if those conditions change.
Secondly, how do you know that it is not happening now but the high oxygen atmosphere (caused by oxygen-producing organisms) quickly breaks it down or the competition from a biosphere filled with living things consumes it before we observe it?
Thanks. I have been meaning to chime in to similar effect. EVERYONE thinks abiogenesis happened. Whether they also think that something that goes bump in the night was required or not, it happened. The question “how?” is one which science has the competency to answer, but the fact that science has the competency doesn’t mean we get to fast-forward to the answer; it means we have tools for the investigation.
Fair enough but I don’t think that biological life always existed I just think that the ever living one the only true form of life that is was and will be is where life comes from so either way it’s life from life
Abiogenesis can be defined as the chemical process by which inanimate matter transitioned (from a historical perspective) to the living state. That there was a transition (using chemical materials found in our natural environment) is not in doubt because of the presence of the same elements in living organisms of today (which are descendants of the earliest life forms) and our natural environment (earth, sun, stars, atmosphere, meteors etcetera). The above, bolded piece of evidence is the strongest for the emergence of life from inanimate matter through some unknown natural process. Another line of evidence is that the same physicochemical principles which govern the behavior of abiotic elements are the same for those that constitute extant living organisms: two sodium ions would repel each other in water in a beaker or your blood; iron (in one ionic form) will catalyze the production of free radicals in a process called the Fenton reaction in a test tube or cells of your body.
Abiogenesis is a historical fact, but how that fact happened is where disagreements lie. Every abiogenesis or OoL paper I have ever read works with this fact in mind: they don’t question it happened (because there is evidence it did), rather they question how it happened and that has birthed ideas like the RNA-world hypothesis.
The paper (Cronin, a renowned OoL chemist, is one of the authors) below demonstrates my point. As to the “how” aspects of abiogenesis, it says:
As for whether abiogenesis even happened at all, it says:
Another paper makes a similar point:
It should be clear by now that the consensus is that abiogenesis happened, but there is no agreement, yet, on how it could have happened, but many insights have been gained on the issue.
I have done my homework. Now provide citations from the primary literature where abiogenesis is called a scientific theory?
Every cell that exists at the moment I typed this comment descended from a preexisting cell (or cells). Those preexisting cells in turn descended from cells that existed before them. This chain of descent cannot continue indefinitely since cellular life did not always exist. Thus, there must have been a time when the life-life systems emerged directly from natural environment. Abiogenesis made biogenesis possible.
Two more things, don’t you know how to punctuate your sentences and don’t you know how to use the quote feature when replying to comments?
Obviously The Ever Living One would not be in any form such as that of biological life that is contingent, composite, dependent, and mortal rather The Most High is absolute, formless, massless, independent and immortal.
Why would it? It is obvious we do not live under an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Anaerobic mineralization occurred in the distant past as well, should it still be occurring?
Spontaneous generation was never an explanation for the origin of all life, only the origin of some extant living things. Further, most of the origins spontaneous generation proposed required living things to have previously existed, since they involved organisms emerging from meat, natural fibres, broth etc.
Thank you for the links but that still is not detract from the fact that every single provided link in a Google search States that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact thank you
So if it’s not the explanation for the origin of all life and just some life as you say then the origin of the other life must be life from life