Abiogenesis and life on Earth - thoughts and pet theories?

[Oddish]

It was proved in a lab that a lightning strike can make Amino Acids bind together.

Yup! But simple amino acids have 10 or 12 atoms. Bacteria have 10 or 12 billion. Saying this proves abiogenesis is like claiming a victory in a baseball game after pitching a single strike.

So... you were making s*** up.

Of course I was! How else am I going to illustrate my point without some judicious use of analogy? Or, if you prefer, parable?

What was the second party involved with the creation of God?

None is necessary. A Being who is omnipresent in time as well as space needs no origin story.

Fair enough. And it's possible that abiogenesis happened on Earth more than once.

Well, I still maintain that it's statistically impossible for it to happen even once. All anyone's been able to counter it with is attempts to force the process through sheer multiplication. Even assuming a fairly low number of d6's in that bucket (200 or so), you could roll them 1000 times a second from Big Bang to Big Chill, and the odds against all 6's would still be astronomical.

 

[BillJ]

So....there ALWAYS has to be a second party involved, except for the thing that you cannot prove actually exists?

How convenient.

Funny that.

Non-believers always ask this question, not realizing that the very nature of God lies outside of it. As the literal "uncaused first cause", God is not made. He is completely timeless, the all-powerful "unmoved mover" who's by His own nature eternal, without beginning or end. For lack of a better expression, any being responsible for temporal existence would by definition, require a state outside of it.

See, I would've respected, "I don't know?" Because there are so many things we don't know. Instead, we get more unprovable gibberish.

 

[BillJ]

Of course I was! How else am I going to illustrate my point without some judicious use of analogy? Or, if you prefer, parable?

Please don't edit words in my posts. I wrote what I wrote and I stand by what I wrote. If you can't respond without changing the words, just skip on by.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Funny that.



See, I would've respected, "I don't know?" Because there are so many things we don't know. Instead, we get more unprovable gibberish.

That's where we differ. You seem to believe that only science has any answers, but that's not a literally scientific position. Its called "scientism", which is a philosophical stance assuming that rational knowledge is scientific, and everything else claiming to be knowledge is either superstitious, irrational, emotional, or nonsensical. But none of that can be proved in a lab, or seen in nature - its a worldview that defeats itself.

By contrast, I recognize that science can provide some answers, but I also know there's many limits which exist beyond its inherent capabilities. For example, concepts such as love, honor, respect, and trust are not strictly scientific - we can't find them in our DNA, or locate them among the stars. They're metaphysical by definition, yet we still know they're a part of us. Just because we can't see, touch, hear, or smell something, that doesn't mean it was never there.

 

[BillJ]

Shit is getting mighty deep in here!

 

[Oddish]

Please don't edit words in my posts. I wrote what I wrote and I stand by what I wrote. If you can't respond without changing the words, just skip on by.

And besides, if I use bad language like everyone else does, you can point fingers and say I'm a hypocrite.

 

[HotRod]

Shit is getting mighty deep in here!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, I still maintain that it's statistically impossible for it to happen even once.

You've been asked to produce specifics, and you've declined to show any. Your argument is worth what proof you've produced in defense of it: nothing.

 

[T'Bonz]

Moviefan2k4 and Oddish.

This is the Science and Technology forum, *not* the Philosophy and Religion forum. Let's keep it that way, OK?

Furthermore, Moviefan2k4, for a newbie, you're coming up on my radar way too often. I'd suggest you drop way back down if you want your tenure here to be of long duration. We already have a full quota of problem children.

I'll be around this forum for a bit, so mind your p's and q's. Any arguments with this, take it to PM and not in here.

I don't expect problems in here from here on out, right?

 

[Oddish]

I apologize, @T'Bonz - Given that the subject of the topic was theories concerning abiogenesis, I was under the assumption that I was allowed to theorize that it didn't happen. Especially since my case was utilizing science, not philosophy.

Since you have tacitly informed me that this topic can only be used by people who believe in abiogenesis, and I obviously cannot appeal an admin's decision, I will leave the discussion.

 

[BillJ]

Basically, the branch of the multiverse you experience might eventually achieve godhood and either bootstrap its own existence or create new universes - possibly both. Heinlein proposed that directed thought could control the version of the universe that you experienced - a bit like the Q - if one adopted the correct regimen.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Dr. K.R. Kollman hon.]

Yup! But simple amino acids have 10 or 12 atoms. Bacteria have 10 or 12 billion. Saying this proves abiogenesis is like claiming a victory in a baseball game after pitching a single strike.

It's called 'you have to start somewhere.' That baseball game has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. I think you are ignoring the beginning and jumping to the 5th Inning.

And after the start, there could be a 'snowball effect'. Or with each generation there's just the tiniest change. After a billion generations, that's a billion changes.

I don't think you are taking into account the 4.3 billion years old the Earth is supposed to be. That's a lot of changes.

Or a lot of strikes in that baseball game.

EIT: here's a video about Biomolecules that can help.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It has been postulated in recent years that membranes, nucleotides and metabolism can all start together given the right conditions - the probability is closer to one rather than ridiculously small and a multiverse is not required. Multiple instances of abiogenesis might also have occurred with interaction between them - both cooperation and competition. However, I haven't read the scientific literature on this so can't really comment one way or another. Like most technical subjects, it's relatively easy to skim the surface details, but deep understanding requires years of intensive study.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I apologize, @T'Bonz - Given that the subject of the topic was theories concerning abiogenesis, I was under the assumption that I was allowed to theorize that it didn't happen. Especially since my case was utilizing science, not philosophy.

Since you have tacitly informed me that this topic can only be used by people who believe in abiogenesis, and I obviously cannot appeal an admin's decision, I will leave the discussion.

Same here; I honestly didn't mean to rile anyone.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Doesn't bother me what people believe as long as I'm not expected to agree nor debate creationism versus natural abiogenesis. Unless we acquire a time machine of some description or observe how life develops on other worlds, we aren't going to resolve such a dichotomy of opinion. Experiments to replicate the conditions on Archaean Earth under which amino acids, nucleotides, possible precursors to acetyl coenzyme A and mechanisms such as the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and the reductive TCA cycle, and lipid membranes have gained some traction in recent years, but we've never been able to pin down the exact conditions that were required.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

It‘s not necessary to find the exact process and conditions under which it happened, to blow any notion that a god is required out of the water.
Just finding a condiction under which it was possible is needed.

That said… it is not science‘s job to disprove any gods, so who cares.

All science does is find models with explanatory power to base further research and applications on.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If, once on every Earth analog (see below for a link to definitions), you pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, on how many planets will you get all boxcars? I'd bet that it's more than zero.

I was critical of @Oddish for not showing his work, so I'll show mine.

p = number of planets (in the observable universe, Earth analogs or not) = 10^23 [https://www.livescience.com/space/how-many-planets-are-in-the-universe],
d = number of dice,
p / 6^d > 1/2,
2*p > 6^d,
30 > ln(2*p)/ln(6) > d.

maximum number of dice per gallon = 231 (in^3/gal) / .63^3 (in^3/die) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice#Arrangement]
= 923 (note that this maximum cannot be attained in a round bucket).

If we're sticking to expected definitions, such as working in the observable universe, using regular dice of the usual kind, using buckets of the usual kind, clearly, I was wrong, and I accept my mistake. In the spirit of the question "How possible is life, ever?", I could bend the definitions and say that I'm talking about not just the observable universe as of this moment, but the entire universe for all time, and I'd certainly have a lot larger pool of planets, arguably perhaps even an infinite pool, which would end the argument in my favor. But that wouldn't be fair. Instead of letting myself get sucked into a debate involving undefined terms and unjustified analogies, I should have done all this work before posting, and for not doing so, I apologize.

This doesn't mean that @Oddish is right about abiogenesis being statistically impossible, because he hasn't proven that his analogy applies.

 

[StarCruiser]

Story of the Garden of Eden... What was the point? Loss of innocence - nothing more, nothing less. We had become more that merely smart animals and that is what "cast us out of Eden".

Most of the book of Genesis is allegorical, not literal and the fact that large parts of it (story of Noah and the Ark etc...) can be found in other older sources created long before the oldest known form of that first book of the Bible - should be a hint that you CAN NOT take it literally at all...

Don't bother saying that I haven't read it, my Grandfather was an un-ordained Baptist minister and I have been exposed to (and read it) many times.

 

[T'Bonz]

^ Again, science, not religion please.

 

[Mudd]

Non-believers always ask this question, not realizing that the very nature of God lies outside of it. As the literal "uncaused first cause", God is not made. He is completely timeless, the all-powerful "unmoved mover" who's by His own nature eternal, without beginning or end. For lack of a better expression, any being responsible for temporal existence would by definition, require a state outside of it.

IOW, this version of God is a reductive explanation. Doesn't cut it.