• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creating life from matter

John Hewitt said:
I think somebody, somebody who knows how to do such things, should organize a vote on whether abiogenesis did, or did not, occur by an evolutionary mechanism.
Click to expand...

Science by popular vote. I think a referendum on gravity would be good, right now it's too much of a drag.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Not entirely sure how this is done but I seem to remember some sort of experiment where someone created very basic forms of life in a test tube from just a mixture of matter.

How true is this statement I found?
Click to expand...
That statement is not at all true.
From the 88 scientific papers referenced earlier there are studies that:
1. demonstrate the creation of basic organic molecules (like acetate, simple amino acids, purines and pyrimidines) from a mixture of inorganic chemicals under specific chemical conditions.
2. Document the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin of certain organic molecules (glycine)
3. investigate the possible origin of a replicating information system. Many studies investigating the plausibility of "RNA world" (the hypothetical origin of the current genetic code in a pre DNA, pre protein world where RNA served both catalyst and information storage functions) are listed. A study of the interaction of nucleosides with clay is also in the list, clay having been suggested as a possible inorganic replicable/information system.
3. Investigate the origin and evolution of the current genetic code and the origin of protein/nucleic acid interaction.
4. Investigate the formation of lipid layers, spheres and proto-cells in aqueous environments.
5. Investigate The likely path of evolution of basic metabolic pathways
6. Describe 3.47 Gyr old bacterial fossils and likely characteristics of the common ancestor or all life on Earth.

From this nice collection of papers you can get the gist of how scientists envision life to have arisen, first by the formation of the basic molecules, the origin of a replicating system, with the eventual evolution of nucleic acids and their interaction with proteins. Once the replicator has been set off, it would become enclosed within a barrier (semipermeable membrane), and then the common ancestor is off and running with future evolution of metabolic pathways, refinements in the information machinery, sexual reproduction, multicellularity, etc. It's entirely possible that the initial barrier, rather than a lipid membrane, was a protein shell, like a virus, allowing transfer between pools of concentrated organic molecules where the replicator could function without it's shell.
Anyhow, the experiments, even in this long list do leave some large gaps in our understanding, like the jump from simple organic molecules to giant polymers, the origin of the replicator, and the origin of the protein/nucleic acid interaction, to name a few.
I'm sure some like to argue that gaps=impossibilities out of ignorance, and as I said before a process this complex has multiple potentially correct solutions. Thus we have no way to absolutely confirm the exact correct sequence, but we can certainly work to fill in the gaps with plausible answers.
 
tsig said:
Yes once you have a replicating molecule evolution starts, the question of how that first replicating molecule came to be is abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
So maybe we need to see who is on this page, and who is defining evolution as only starting after a replicating 'life form' rather than a 'replicating molecule' developed.

I've asked a couple times and I saw no answer (unless I missed it) where this divide is.

For one, once the first replicating molecule is found, the abiogenesis answer will by necessity be included. It has been hypothesized this molecule is RNA, but then comes the question of how large a molecule and how did it form. Without those answers you can't answer the question of the first replicating molecule.
 
Wudang said:
If you assume that morality is the offspring of religion rather than philosophy, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what meaning your post is intended to convey but I think that philosophy, science and capitalism - itself very tied up with science - are all products of various strands of religious thought. I even suggest that this is a matter of historical record.
 
Wowbagger said:
I prefer to show them what we are working on. It is often quite a lot more than they imagined, and the answers are still useful for solving problems in the field of bio-chemistry. All this, in spite of the fact that the answers are still not complete.

Provisional ideas, backed by evidence, accomplish a lot more than non-answers and superfluous ideas.
Click to expand...
I understand this, and even agree to some extent. However, the fact that different evidence supports the two ideas still stands (ie, horse teeth say nothing about abiogenesis, and chemical trace fossils say nothing about horse teeth), and the fact remains that while we can discusse THE evolution of any taxa we're still in the early stages of abiogenesis research. Discussing where we are in the research is interesting, but ultimately a red herring (in that if the discussion is about whether or not evolution is true, a discussion about the state of research in abiogenesis does not contribute much to that discussion).

Skeptic Ginger said:
Before we keep going with this discussion, I wonder if people would mind disclosing their biases? Specifically I would like to know if we are having a scientific debate or a theological debate.
Click to expand...
I'm an atheist and a paleontologist. I'm arguing that the two fields are different, but related, scientific diciplines.

John Hewitt said:
What is said and "I don't know how many times I have to repeat that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."
I would add that if you want to draw lines you should explain why and try to specify its position.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Abiogenesis is how life arose. Evolution is how things chang through time. In order to change through time, the thing must arise first--you can't change the nonexistent. Furthermore, evolution as a theory applies to many different systems, not just biology (for example, computer programs can evolve). Abiogenesis is how life on Earth arose (I almost said Earth-like, but Ward makes a very good argument that the first life on Earth was not Earth-like, in that it's not like what we see today or in the fossil record), and therefore is a much narrower theory. There's some overlap obviously; biology is nothing if not messy! But one can distinguish between the two, even if the edges are fuzzy.

If you don't agree, please explain how paleontology and biology can be considered different diciplines. After all, the edge between those two fields is HIGHLY fuzzy.
 
Dinwar said:
Discussing where we are in the research is interesting, but ultimately a red herring (in that if the discussion is about whether or not evolution is true, a discussion about the state of research in abiogenesis does not contribute much to that discussion).
Click to expand...
Depending on the context within the debate, it can contribute a lot!

Remember: Creationism, and even Intelligent Design, are ideas that cover both grounds. Where we science folks see two disciplines: abiogenesis and evolution, they only see one framework: special creation (perhaps with some flexability to allow for micro variations over time).

Remember also: The discussion will NOT be about whether or not evolution is true, at this point. It will be whether or not natural processes can account for life on Earth. Only one of those processes would be Darwinian-Style Evolution by Natural Selection. The others would be covered by Abiogenesis (mostly variations of autocatalytic systems and such).

The more we can demonstrate how natural processes can account for the elements of life, the less confidence there would be in the necessity of a Designer.

Yes, it's no longer strictly an "Evolution Debate" at that point. But, if the opponent insists on bringing the subject of origins up, I don't make a big deal about that little technicality of scope.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
Have you given us any examples of this, yet?

Name at least one of those papers that "does not work scientifically", and why, please. Two or more if you can manage it.
Click to expand...
The problem of abiogenesis is a problem in chemistry and molecular biology, fields in which, you may recall, I happen to have expertise. I have read at least half the papers on that list and summaries of virtually all the rest. So far as I am aware, none of them work in terms of chemistry or molecular biology but I do not intend to go into any of them here. We've had that kind of discussion before.

So far as the papers on that list are concerned, you are free to form your own judgement and to believe what you like. However, you should note that those papers begin with a variety of different and often incompatible sets of premises; they cannot all be correct. Therefore, you might find it useful to exercise your own critical faculties on those studies and form a judgement as to which of them YOU would discard.

You will recall that, in my opinion, the only chemically workable, evolutionary mechanism for the origin of life from non-life that has yet been presented is my own work. That work is available to you on the "evolution and origin" link below. If you are genuinely interested in the question you keep asking, I suggest you first put some serious effort into understanding those studies. That exercise should resolve most problems.
 
Wowbagger said:
Yes, it's no longer strictly an "Evolution Debate" at that point. But, if the opponent insists on bringing the subject of origins up, I don't make a big deal about that little technicality of scope.
Click to expand...
The problem is, as I said, the issue of authority. I can speak as an authority on paleontology, not a problem--and therefore on my little corner of evolution. Unfortunately, I don't know much about abiogenesis (biogeochemistry puts me to sleep, with the exception of environmental indicators, and even there it takes a strong cup of coffee to slog through it). It's fairly trivial to find examples of Creationists who have goaded a scientist into stepping outside their field of expertise and making a fool of themselves, and the best counter to that that I've found is strict adherence to my field of expertise. So I guess my point is more personal than it is general, in that my point is we should each only discuss those areas we know enough about to have informed opinions on. If someone who knows abiogensis wants to join in the discussion I would gladly bow to their superior knowledge of the subject--and because I'd expect the same from them, I won't pretend to know more than I do.

My problem is that while "we" may be able (or even obligated) to show the difference, but "I" (where "I" means "the person speaking) am not going to be able to know enough about all the fields involved to speak knowledgebly on the subject.

John Hewitt said:
You will recall that, in my opinion, the only chemically workable, evolutionary mechanism for the origin of life from non-life that has yet been presented is my own work.
Click to expand...
A typical scienist--"The only one that's right is me!" :D (I say this mostly in jest, and certainly not as an insult--I've done the same, as I'm sure all scientists have.)
 
John Hewitt said:
The problem of abiogenesis is a problem in chemistry and molecular biology, fields in which, you may recall, I happen to have expertise. I have read at least half the papers on that list and summaries of virtually all the rest. So far as I am aware, none of them work in terms of chemistry or molecular biology but I do not intend to go into any of them here. We've had that kind of discussion before.

So far as the papers on that list are concerned, you are free to form your own judgement and to believe what you like. However, you should note that those papers begin with a variety of different and often incompatible sets of premises; they cannot all be correct. Therefore, you might find it useful to exercise your own critical faculties on those studies and form a judgement as to which of them YOU would discard.

You will recall that, in my opinion, the only chemically workable, evolutionary mechanism for the origin of life from non-life that has yet been presented is my own work. That work is available to you on the "evolution and origin" link below. If you are genuinely interested in the question you keep asking, I suggest you first put some serious effort into understanding those studies. That exercise should resolve most problems.
Click to expand...
I believe it is quite well known that many viable theories about the origin of life have been presented and published. Until your claims have been professionally reviewed, I would not include them in the mix. If I am mistaken about this, please direct me to where in THIS wikipedia article (or elsewhere -- not your own vanity websites) I might find an analysis or review of your contributions.
 
Dinwar said:
The problem is, as I said, the issue of authority. I can speak as an authority on paleontology, not a problem--and therefore on my little corner of evolution. Unfortunately, I don't know much about abiogenesis (biogeochemistry puts me to sleep, with the exception of environmental indicators, and even there it takes a strong cup of coffee to slog through it).
Click to expand...
I suppose that would be a potential issue for a professional scientist. But:

1. I am not, at all, a professional scientist, myself. I have no "areas of authority" in biological matters. As an amateur I have the freedom to read up on whatever level of detail I want, on any subject, and spit it back out. I can allow an Evolution debate to be taken anywhere it is going to go. Anywhere my opponent might have some "challenges" to offer. Even if I have to spend time reading more stuff before I can answer them.

2. If a professional scientist is going to take the time to debate creationists, they should consider getting some training in areas they will tend to go. Even if they are outside your own.
Or, if you are not going to bother venturing outside your areas of expertise, at least collect some links to resources that can. It is better to say "abiogenesis is outside my area of expertise, but here is some stuff you can read, if you are interested", than to say "well, since abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution, I will not go into it".

3. Authority means little on the Internet. Here, we argue the arguments, not the person.

John Hewitt said:
The problem of abiogenesis is a problem in chemistry and molecular biology, fields in which, you may recall, I happen to have expertise. I have read at least half the papers on that list and summaries of virtually all the rest. So far as I am aware, none of them work in terms of chemistry or molecular biology but I do not intend to go into any of them here.
Click to expand...
I think you are challenging the relevance of the studies, not the science in them.

I think that instead of saying "none of them work scientifically", you should be saying "none of them will prove to be relevant once we determine how life really got started".

Because, I have no reason to believe any of those papers fail to work scientifically. As far as I can tell, they each work very nicely within the context of the study they are relevant to. We are learning about biochemistry from each of them. And, specific problems in the field of biochemistry can be resolved with the help of these papers, to an expected degree of reliability.

If you think they will ultimately be a waste of time, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But, that has no bearing on the scientific value others will see in them.

And, if I am wrong on my assumptions about how you feel, please let me know.
 
Perpetual Student said:
I believe it is quite well known that many viable theories about the origin of life have been presented and published. Until your claims have been professionally reviewed, I would not include them in the mix. If I am mistaken about this, please direct me to where in THIS wikipedia article (or elsewhere -- not your own vanity websites) I might find an analysis or review of your contributions.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that reading such scriptures is necessary for scientific progress but I do not agree with you that it is sufficient. In my opinion, progress also requires original thought.
 
John Hewitt said:
I agree with you that reading such scriptures is necessary for scientific progress but I do not agree with you that it is sufficient. In my opinion, progress also requires original thought.
Click to expand...
Yeah.....When you actually talk to a scientist, come back and let us know what you think. Science is built on original thought--we don't just assume that the literature is correct.

Also, your website doesn't deal with Hadean ocean chemistry. Therefore we can more or less dismiss it out of hand.

Wowbagger said:
1. I am not, at all, a professional scientist, myself. I have no "areas of authority" in biological matters. As an amateur I have the freedom to read up on whatever level of detail I want, on any subject, and spit it back out. I can allow an Evolution debate to be taken anywhere it is going to go. Anywhere my opponent might have some "challenges" to offer. Even if I have to spend time reading more stuff before I can answer them.
Click to expand...
I get that. However, your lack of expertise doesn't mean that the two fields are the same field, nor that saying "Abiogenesis isn't evolution" isn't a valid response. If the Creationist is too ignorant to even know the definitions of the fields under debate I see no reason to respect their ignorance. My argument isnt' "These are different, therefore you're wrong", but rather "These fields are different, and evidence for one isn't evidence for another, therefore disproving one does not necessarily disprove the other".

2. If a professional scientist is going to take the time to debate creationists, they should consider getting some training in areas they will tend to go. Even if they are outside your own.
Click to expand...
I agree--I merely expect an equal level of effort from Creationists. Futile, I know, but hope spriings eternal.

3. Authority means little on the Internet. Here, we argue the arguments, not the person.
Click to expand...
Look at John Hewett's website to see why this is wrong. I'm sure he's a very good chemist, but his focus on chemistry blinds him to geology (particularly Hadean geochemistry). Thus he's lacking key concepts in the whole abiogenesis debate. Similarly, a person who's an expert in biology likely (and my experience bears this out) has no clue what they're talking about in terms of paleontology. Similarly a person who's an expert in paleontology, or evolution in general, doesn't have the knowledge to speak intelligently on the subject of abiogenesis. The problem is, the two fields ARE different. Evolution deals with biochemistry, and metabolic pathways, and morphospace, while abiogenesis deals with biogeochemistry, and redox bariers, and fractionation due to different crystal faces. Sure, you can debate the arguments and not hte person--but the person's knowledge dictates what evidence they have to work with, and therefore how good their arguments are. No one has an infinite amount of time to study, and therefore we must specialize.
 
John Hewitt said:
I agree with you that reading such scriptures is necessary for scientific progress but I do not agree with you that it is sufficient. In my opinion, progress also requires original thought.
Click to expand...

We certainly agree on that, but original thought can often be off the mark, which is why professional review retains its very important role. As a layman in this field, I find professional criticism essential to my understanding and education.
 
Dinwar said:
"These fields are different, and evidence for one isn't evidence for another, therefore disproving one does not necessarily disprove the other".
Click to expand...
This might be an important point to remind everyone, once in a while.

Though, if the debate is larger than evolution: If it is about natural processes vs. intelligent intervention, it matters little.

Dinwar said:
Look at John Hewett's website to see why this is wrong. I'm sure he's a very good chemist, but his focus on chemistry blinds him to geology (particularly Hadean geochemistry). Thus he's lacking key concepts in the whole abiogenesis debate
Click to expand...

But, John Hewett's arguments can effectively be argued against on their own merits or lack thereof.

John's ideas are not "wrong because John has the wrong authority". They could be "wrong because other experiments are more successful in showing us how things are done".

It makes no difference if John held 50 Ph.Ds. in various sciences, from various prestigious schools; or if he dropped out of Kindergarten and never returned to a classroom. Or anywhere in between. One can still argue the arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom