Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Abiogenesis a fact?
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 1 of 303 (273647)
12-28-2005 7:03 PM


Hi everyone, this is my first shot at a new topic.... so don't be too harsh on me!
My question is can we consider Abiogenesis a fact?
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Fact - Living things change over time
The theory of evolution is our attempt to explain the process behing this.
So can we say:
Fact - There used to be no life on earth. There is now life on earth. Therefore life arose from non-life.
The theory of abiogenesis is how we attempt to explain the process.
I am not asking if the theory of abiogenesis is true, only whether we can consider it a fact that abiogenesis happened (although we could certainly discuss abiogenesis).
Also note, even if we consider it a fact that abiogenesis happened it does not preclude a god or god(s) causing it to happpen.
So can we consider abiogensis a factual occurence based on available evidence?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2005 7:24 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2005 3:03 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 11 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 2:45 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 27 by alphablu82, posted 01-11-2006 11:42 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 05-03-2006 7:21 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 152 by randman, posted 06-07-2006 12:40 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 196 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2006 11:19 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 236 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-07-2006 3:24 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 303 (273650)
12-28-2005 7:05 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 303 (273657)
12-28-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 7:03 PM


Theory of Abiogenesis vs. Hypothesis of Abiogenesis
I think I can accept your "fact" of abiogenesis, if you would include the possibility of life having come from outer space as being one of the possible processes of abiogenesis.
Fact of Abiogenesis - Life did have an initial occurance on Earth"
Because of the terminal uncertainties about the very ealiest lifeforms, I question if the collected knowledge about abiogenesis does or ever can be truly elevated to theory status. I personally would prefer sticking to "Hypothesis of Abiogenesis" (HoA).
One of the competing hypothesies of abiogenesis could be "Godly creation". Another could be "introduced from space". And so forth. And I don't think you're going to come anywhere close to "proving" any of them.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:03 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:32 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 12-29-2005 5:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 4 of 303 (273660)
12-28-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
12-28-2005 7:24 PM


Re: Theory of Abiogenesis vs. Hypothesis of Abiogenesis
I think I can accept your "fact" of abiogenesis, if you would include the possibility of life having come from outer space as being one of the possible processes of abiogenesis.
Fact of Abiogenesis - Life did have an initial occurance on Earth"
Good point there. I hadn't even considered an extraterrestrial source. I guess that is certainly a possibility (reminds of one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek - TNG).....
I guess the fact of abiogenesis would state.
First part - "There was originally no life on earth" - In other words if you go back in time far enough at some point there is no life on earth. For example, let's say there is no life on earth for the frist 2 billion years (just an example, not a claim).
Second part - "There is life on earth now"... Basically at some point in earth's history life appeared and there had never been terrestrial life before that.
We may never have a theory of abiogenesis... who knows. (personally, I think our best bet would be to get really lucky and discover another earth like planet very early in it's development cycle).
However, if we are even going to try and figure out how life arose I think it's very important that we have evidence that there was once no life on earth and there is now.
Question: Do we have enough evidence to know that there was origninally no life on earth. in other words Start condition = no life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2005 7:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Discreet Label, posted 12-29-2005 2:05 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2005 7:47 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 44 by robyn, posted 04-27-2006 6:01 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 5 of 303 (273736)
12-29-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 7:32 PM


Re: Theory of Abiogenesis vs. Hypothesis of Abiogenesis
As to the question of there being enough information to deduce whether there was no life on earth originally...I thought there was.
And the way the evidence was indicated was through geology, i believe. Right now my information is a little sketchy its been a couple million words reading since i last read about life on earth earlier.
talk origins had a few faqs in regards to it, one of them indicated that oxygen dependant life had not occured yet because earth was a heavily reducing atmosphere. and when photosynthesis started occuring is when we started moving toward a more oxidizing atmoshphere. And the evidence that photosynthesis wasn't present the entire time was because of thick bands of oxidized iron compounds IIRC. Any oxygen that was created through photosynthesis pretty quickly bound up with iron which started forming thick layers on the crust.
Err...so the heavy bands of iron kind of indicate that start of oxygen type life (i'm not so sure about the not so oxygen kind of life that exists near thermal vents though)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:32 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 2:34 AM Discreet Label has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 6 of 303 (273742)
12-29-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Discreet Label
12-29-2005 2:05 AM


Photosynthisis at bottom of Ocean
Sorta off topic kinda but...
Don't know if you guys saw it but scientists have found bacteria that rely on photosynthesis at the bottom of the ocean.
Apparently bubbles emerging from the vents produce small bursts of light when they collapse. It's not much, but enough for these deep critters to get by.
Kinda makes you think about whether life started on the surface and worked its way down, or if life maybe started deep in the Earths mantle and has been working its way up and out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Discreet Label, posted 12-29-2005 2:05 AM Discreet Label has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 303 (273746)
12-29-2005 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 7:03 PM


Interesting
I think we can safely say that there was a time when there was no life. From that no life, sprang life. As stated earlier it could be theogenesis or xenogenesis but ultimately it is always abiogenesis. So yes, I'll go with abiogenesis being a fact, however there is no explanation for it, so no 'theory', just a few varying hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:03 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 8 of 303 (273753)
12-29-2005 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
12-28-2005 7:24 PM


Life on earth vs. life in the universe
If it's life that came from outer space, then the question of how life arose is still unanswered. The question should not be how life arose on earth - although that is of course our immediate concern - but how life arose in the universe.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2005 7:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 9 of 303 (273760)
12-29-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 7:32 PM


Re: Theory of Abiogenesis vs. Hypothesis of Abiogenesis
Good point there. I hadn't even considered an extraterrestrial source. I guess that is certainly a possibility (reminds of one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek - TNG).....
Where I stand on this is pretty well covered by (not to toot my horn but)
http://EvC Forum: RAZD - Building Blocks of Life
It seems to me that the universe is seeded with the stuff necessary for the beginning of life, so all that is needed is a good enough "crucible" - a "habitizable" planet.
Certainly the earth was very different at the beginning of life than it is now, and early life is responsible for that change.
It is also likely that we will never know the exact moment, seeing as the oldest rocks we can find that have not been transformed already have evidence of rather advanced life - complete cells.
Before that all we have is evidence that the planet was not habitable - according to out understanding of life - due to rampant volcanic activity.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:32 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 2:13 PM RAZD has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 10 of 303 (273864)
12-29-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
12-29-2005 7:47 AM


Re: Theory of Abiogenesis vs. Hypothesis of Abiogenesis
Thanks everyone, I figured that what you all replied was the case, but it's always interesting to hear other points of view.
I think maybe I chose the wrong word (abiogenesis).
What I was getting at, is if it was safe to assume that start condition earth = no life. (of course current condition earth = life)...
Even though this may seem obvious to all of us... It seems important to me at least, that we are fairly sure this is a valid assumption (of course the alternative would be that life has always existed on earth, which I would agree seems impossible).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2005 7:47 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 2:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 11 of 303 (273869)
12-29-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 7:03 PM


Definitions would help
In the OP, Mini_Ditka writes:
My question is can we consider Abiogenesis a fact?
From the Christian Apologetics site - http://www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm :
quote:
Abiogenesis - the hypothetical process where life spontaneously formed from organic material that had arisen from inorganic material.
From the Talk.Origins Archive - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Glossary
quote:
abiogenesis Not to be confused with "spontaneous generation," it is the theory that life originally arose from non-living matter, given the proper conditions during the early earth.
From these definitions, I would say that you are asking about life from non-life rather than if the Martians left their DNA while copulating in the ocean before they left for another galaxy.
There are a number of experiments going on concerning this subject. Despite some promising results, I don't think that the scientific community at large is stating that abiogenesis is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 7:03 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 2:55 PM LinearAq has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 12 of 303 (273871)
12-29-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-29-2005 2:13 PM


Options
Even though this may seem obvious to all of us... It seems important to me at least, that we are fairly sure this is a valid assumption (of course the alternative would be that life has always existed on earth, which I would agree seems impossible).
You seem to have overlooked the chance that a god had a hand/tenticle/noodly appendage in it.
Many assume that abiogenesis means that there was no supernatural force acting on the chemicals that clumped together. So, gods causing the initial lifeform could be an option.
Aliens too...but you put that in with abiogenesis for some unfathomable reason.
edited to get my quote box right
This message has been edited by LinearAq, 12-29-2005 02:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 2:13 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 13 of 303 (273872)
12-29-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by LinearAq
12-29-2005 2:45 PM


Re: Definitions would help
From these definitions, I would say that you are asking about life from non-life rather than if the Martians left their DNA while copulating in the ocean before they left for another galaxy.
There are a number of experiments going on concerning this subject. Despite some promising results, I don't think that the scientific community at large is stating that abiogenesis is a fact.
I'm not referring to any hypothesis about how life arose from non-life.
I am simply saying that originally there was no life on earth and now there is. How this arose is entirely another question. Could abiogensis, xenogenesis even theogenesis.
Look at evolution. There is the fact of evolution and the theory.
FACT - evolution occurs i.e. living things change over time
The theory is our explanation of this process.
same type of thing here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 2:45 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 3:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 233 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:30 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 14 of 303 (273875)
12-29-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-29-2005 2:55 PM


Got caught up in the definitions
Ok...
Then all you are asking is whether life has been on earth back through infinity past.
I would say...hmmmmm...nope! Since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe seems to be only ~14 billion years old, then inifinity past for life on earth is pretty much out of the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 2:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2005 3:20 PM LinearAq has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 303 (273877)
12-29-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LinearAq
12-29-2005 3:02 PM


An agreement
This is something that everyone here can agree with.
There was a time when there was no life on earth. It arose from inorganic matter. We all agree.
There are some minor difficulties with getting agreement on the details.
One group says that a God took dust and made it alive -- no details are given as to how this occured.
Another group says that life arose as a combination of inorgainic chemicals --- very limited details are hypothesized.
One side knows it doesn't know the details; the other seems convinced it does but has never offered any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 12-29-2005 3:32 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 17 by Parasomnium, posted 12-29-2005 4:22 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 18 by LinearAq, posted 12-29-2005 6:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024