Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Supernintendo wrote:I beg to disagree. I do not think that abiogenesis--concept of life originating from non-life--is rational. Common observation says that babies come from mothers, chicken from eggs, etc. Life from life.This concept is not rational in that it is "transferring the burden of proof". Like saying: "a unicorn exist since no one can disprove that it does not".For me to believe that life would come from non-life, scientists have to create a living thing (say a fly or worm), out of a non-living thing like a stone.I think this issue was already settled by previous scientists like Pasteur. In one simple experiment where maggots where observe on a cheese, some nuts said; 'there goes your proof--life from non life'. Pasteur covered the cheese and no maggots came out. Of course we now know that maggots were there because flies laid eggs on that cheese.Your Judean Governor,
Pilate_judas

Crashfrog wrote: I don't understand your logic. Just because plants derive their nutrients (nitrogen, etc) from the soil does not mean that plants come from these compounds. No! It just means that plants use this as food. Still I don't understand. Your mother gave you birth. You ate a lot more than her, that's why you get bigger than she is. Plain and simple. But, to say that you come from the many foods that you eat is stretching your imagination too much.Similarly just because I contain carbon dioxide and iron, just as a rock contains carbon dioxide and iron does not mean I come from a rock!Ah, I guess here is where the fallacy comes in. Observe the difference between wrong and right conclusionPremise (P1) Rocks contain carbon and iron
P2: Man contains carbon and ironWrong Conclusion: Therefore man comes from rock.Right conclusion: Therefore, Rocks and man share some common elements (carbon, and iron)

Catholic Scientist wrote: Has scientists ever re-created that 'presumably very simple life form'? None that I know of. Have they even been able to create true protein out of non living thing? No. They may be able to create the building blocks--the components--of protein (amino acid, etc) but not protein itself. If all the brains of these scientist and their controlled laboratories could not build (yet)one of the more complex component of life, how is it that they presumptously presume that life come from non life?This statement is not logical: 'If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition?The error in this statement lies in the confusion of what is SOME and what is ALL. Funny, but I think scientists who think that because chimps share 98% of DNA of men, men must have evolve from chimps are making fundamental errors in logic.Let me repeat this: Just because a dog share SOME of the elements of a rock ( for example:carbon, iron, etc) doesn't mean a dog comes from a rock. The logical statement is: "because carbon, and iron are found in dogs and rocks, therefore dogs and rocks share SOME common elements".

Crashfrog says: Yes,it is unreasonable. And, yes it should not make sense to you. Food is fuel to the body just as gas is fuel to a car. A fuel does not make a car, does it? According to my high school biology teacher, food is fuel to our cells. Our cells grow because of that fuel. We gain weight because our cells grow, not because of food per se. Sharing the same elements w/ rocks does not mean I come from rocks. I could not agree that I turned a non-living matter to a living matter. (That is a big leap of faith and a bit irrational) I would agree that my cells used those elements to fuel growth. Putting it another way my now multiplied cells consist not just its fuel but the intricate system of "inputs" + "process" = "output" (additional cells). In other words, those elements that I share w/ a rock (e.g iron) are just inputs. My cells are more than that. It has built in design to process those inputs to come up w/ additional outputs.Please do not confuse the equation--> input + process = output w/ just the inputs. It is obviously not.SimPle illustration. A car is not its fuel. A fuel is just one of those inputs needed to make the car work.Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

Moduluos wrote:To prove you have a cake, you have to bake a cake. Not just say I have the ingredients of a cake and the recipe to do it. For all you know the cake could burn into a charcoal.Similarly, to prove that life comes from non life you have to make or create one. To say that you have the "ingredients" of life is not the same as saying that you can create life. (And, life is more complicated than baking a cake, isn't it?)As I have said in another post. Life is an output of this equation:
Input + process = output. Inputs is not equal to output.You also mentioned about an "Abrahamic God", the claimed author of life. He is the exception to that equation because of the rule: "for every rule there is an exception". You can not apply the 'exception rule' to any of the elements of the equation--input + process = output. Why? Because that would destroy the equation and doing so will result in Nothing. So, by deduction the exception rule would apply to the author. That is he is he did not come about because of the equation.And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life.

Modulous wrote: Ha! ha! ha! I know a good argument when I see one. You got me there. Thanks for the elaboration. I could not have done better!I said: "And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life"You improved it: God a the living being actually made life out of nothing. If that is what Abiogenesis mean, then I could not disagree.But, then again. If we begin w/ a living God, isn't it Biogenesis--that is Life started from a living being?Anyway, thanks. You're a genius! Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.

A rude one writes: Sorry, I choose to ignore foul-mouthed ones.By the way, guys, is there an ignore button here?

Hi Crashfrog,
You wrote: I do not dispute that assertion. It is a fact that we grow because our cells make use of non-living things ( like carbohydrates, etc)But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture.Modulous actually stumped me on this when he pointed out to an Abrahmic God. I'll add that Chap 1 of Genesis says: 'in the beginning, the earth was void ( no life at all). Then God said, 'let the earth produce all kinds of creatures'.In the sense that there was no life on earth until God commanded so, if in that sense "abiogenesis" is meant. Then, I won't disagree.But, then again if a living God is the origin of life is it not "biogenesis", or "theogenesis" ,whatever?I repeat for clarity, if your position is to disregard the Ultimate Living Cause as the origin of life, and if your position is similar to those who think that all living things come from a pre-biotic soup w/o His hand, then I disagree.And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. Someone w/ resources and knowledge has to manipulate that equation to come up w/ an output. Simply put, somebody started to switch on the process and here we are.There is I think another line of thought--that He caused that pre-biotic soup to exist. This one I have no sufficient basis to agree or disagree. I would wait till more concrete proofs come in--and that might be eternity.I hope this is clear to you.
PJ

Hi Catholic Scientist,I think I have answered in advance (message # 257) what ever doubts you may have on my position.PJ

Hi Catholic Scientist, I don't completely understand your question. So, I proceed from the assumption that GOD's power was NOT used to originate life. If this is the assumption, I disagree w/ the concept of abiogenesis. The equation just won't work. If God's power is invoked then I agree w/ abiogenesis as I have elaborated on my post # 257.Why do I think that abiogenesis--w/o God's power--is possible? Simply for 2 reasons: (1) The equation won't work, (2) The burden of proof lies on the one that says otherwise. To clarify, if scientists say that life originated from non-life--w/o God's power or intervention--then they have to prove it. Do it in their labs.I hope this is clear enough for you.

Hi Catholic Scientist, Please clarify. The equation INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT will work Without God's hand? You mean that the scientists will come up w/ the ingredients of life, then they can process these ingredients in their sophisticated lab, and presto there will be a living thing?Well, as the saying goes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
Let them do it.

Hi Catholic Scientist, My scanty evidence is that up till now scientists have been grapling to produce protein--real protein--the basic building block of "life". They have not yet done so. (some have claimed production of synthetic protein. But, did this synthetic ones come from non living organism--like from the scratch ?) . They were able to produce some (not all) amino acids that make up protein, but how these proteins fold is still a hurdle to them. The hurdle I believe is like landing a man in Venus??And, even if they produce that "most basic form of life" that would still NOT preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER. Why? Just to build that "basic life form" took all the most brilliant minds to produce it. How much more for the "more complicated life form".?Remember again the definition of a "Maker". One who has the resources and the necessary skills and knowledge to PROCESS INPUTS into desired OUTPUTS.Up until now they still have the burden of proof. What Scientists are actually saying is this: 'we have discovered a horn, a horse, and a wing therefore there is a unicorn'. OK

Hi Crashfrog, Please read my post #266 re. who a maker is. You call it "mindless processes". I'll call it "automatic process mode" set by a mind more brilliant than all scientists combined. It's anybody's guess. I bet mine on the improbability of the odds, you bet the opposite? You are saying that yes the equation is there, therefore it can be done, right? I say, you forgot the "solver" (in a manner of speaking). Its just like this formula. 2X + 5 = 15. Without one to solve the equation, the "X" will remain an "X". As it is anybody's guess, I bet the opposite.I really enjoyed this exchange! I hope you did. And I appreciate the fact that You, Crashfrog,Catholic Scientist, and Modulous were courteous. I just hope that you found me courteous too.kind regards,
PJ

Hi Radz, Thanks for welcoming me. I can only agree that yes, what we are doing here is speculation. Bets are on per my post #269. Let's wait and see what they will come up next.PJ

Hi Hoot Mon,You wrote:I agree. You put it nicely, professor: 'life is mysterious, if not we ought to be making it now in our labs'. As I've said in my previous post: 'show me the worm from science's lab'.Welcome to the question of the ages!
PJ