I think the main problem between how we see it is that I see biogenesis as a presupposition with the conclusion that there must be a diety. Whereas you have the presupposition that a diety does not exist and conclude that abiogenesis must be true.

To reiterate my line of thinking. From all our observations and data, we can prove biogenesis, but cannot prove abiogenesis. Then the next question might be, what caused the first life forms? I answer that by saying that something that can operate outside of our physical laws started it. Can I prove it? No. But, like I mentioned before, nobody can prove what actually happened at the point of origin.

I have a philosophical interest in biology and something called a uniform theory of knowledge. In evangelical theology you can examine anything from a Christian point of view, especially natural science, as long as you don't compromise your core beliefs, so this is just a fun exercise for me, kind of like a big puzzle. In a discussion about the origins of life we should be careful not to overextend our knowledge when coming to general conclusions about knowledge. I admit that I'm looking at this from a Christian perspective and to use a term that has 'genesis' as its root in a discussion about origins immediately calls to mind the expression 'In the Beginning...'. The trouble is that theology gives us very little in the way of a practical understanding of how life works. The only real scientific data we have on the topic is from experimentation and observation. I have suggested that the historical transition of experimentation in this area is useful. I am aware of the Stanley Miller experiment and that certain chemical composition have been produced as a result. He performed experiments that are reproducable by any competent scientist with the proper equipment and background. I find this interesting and wide open for discussion and examination. There is also a wealth of unknown variables that lends itself to debate and a certain amount of speculation.

He had this to say about the results of his prebiotic simulations:

"You have to define 'simulate'. One has to reconstruct and historical event-how did it happen on the primitive earth? You don't even need to argue if you can construct exactly how it happened, but what you can do is to go through a plausible process, from an intitial self-replication. When you do a good pre-biotic experiment, you see biological material-amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars-just fall out. That is telling us something" (Stanley Miller)

Perhaps I'm being a little to overly optimistic but I'm pretty confident that this can be understood from a Christian perspective without core convictions being threatened. Consider this, Genesis gives us a poetic description of God hovering over the prebiotic world which is described as 'the deep' and in utter darkness. This may well include a prebiotic 'crepe' (soup) and since Scripture is silent on this point the only real question is about the amount of time it took (instantaneous or protracted). This does not effect my religious views in any way shape or form but from this point of view one can imagine how chemical compounds can develop from to simple organic compounds. The only real bone of contention being here regards time restraints and that isn't even open to discussion. All I'm saying is that a look at the experimental date that has been produced has plenty of holes in it so its still wide open for debate.

I suggested the Stanley Miller experiment as a place to start for one reason. It was the first prebiotic simulation and even though it only produced a few amino acids initially it is reproducable and thourghly scientific. Of course even after a careful examination of the results we may well draw very different conclusions but thats the fun of a debate. For instants, I could make the argument that the energy nessacary for life came from pyrite 'fools gold' and back it up with solid empirical data. Thats how wide open this topic is for debate.

I feel like I am really being misunderstood in this thread; I am sure that my thoughts are coming out garbled, so I will do my best to make it clear.

I am not presuming anything. I actually don't care if a diety exists or not; it makes no difference to me.

What I am saying is this:

Life comes from life. This is rather a given. But like a car engine, it wasn't running all the time. At some point life had to begin. Agree? Before that point, there was no life. After the "key turned in the ignition," there was life. Whether a diety was involved in the process or not, aren't we talking about abiogenesis here?

This is the original post for the thread:


Zebbeddee is asking two different questions here, but the choices presented are not mutually exclusive.

"Can life come about from non-life?" is the first question. Answering yes doesn't affect anything about a god. A deity could create life from non-life, correct? Isn't that what Christian theology would have us believe? God created the heavens and the Earth. He created all the life on the earth. Sounds like an abiogenetic process, doesn't it?

But Zebbeddee doesn't stop with that question. "(This is NOT a debate of evolution vs creation but about the origin of life, Can it come about by chance?)" is the question in parentheses. The origin of life. Can it come about by chance? That's a different question entirely. I would argue that abiogenetic origin could have either been directed, or random. We just don't know. And even if we proved that life could have come about randomly, the debate still wouldn't end - because that doesn't disprove a deity exists.

It seems to me that this topic was put here with this intent: if abiogenetic theory is flawed, then a god MUST exist. But that is quite flawed logic. It's as flawed as saying that if abiogenesis is proven correct, that means there is no god.

Are you seeing my point yet? Am I missing something? Who is putting forth a biogenetic theory of origins? In fact, no one is. Biogenesis is a common sense observation of an engine while it is running. Abiogenesis is a theory about how that engine started. That theory could include a God, or not, depending on a person's belief.

In conclusion, I think there are several choices:

1. If we agree that life had a beginning, that before that point no life existed, then what we are debating is whether that creative process was directed or random. The problem is, that's a religious debate, not a scientific one.

2. If this thread is a scientific thread in which the merits and problems with current abiogenesis research are debated, OK, but how many of us here really have the knowledge to engage in that debate? Phaedrus may be a genetecist or a biologist, but I am not. If we are going to discuss the pros and cons of current abiogenesis research, all I can do is link to what real biologists and geneticists are saying.

as an aside:
Paedrus, the Miller experiment was interesting, but perhaps you could grant that we have moved on a bit in our understanding since then. It seems this experiment was done in the 1950s. There's been a lot of development in the field since then.

I just wanted to briefly add that I should in no way, shape or form be confused with a genetecist or a biologist. I have to kids that want to be doctors and while they may change their minds I am trying to understand science from a Christian perspective. Abiogenesis comes down to chemical compounds transposing into living organisms (cells). The earliest form of life that we have in fossilized form is the cell. My biology teacher years ago was telling me about the fossils in the cliffs of Dover that have discernable features of a living cell, I wish now I had paid more attention. I'll try to dig up (no pun intended) something a little more current on experimentation in this area and let you all know what I find. I also would like to point out that what makes up a cell is absolutly comprehensive dispite the complexities it is not that hard to come up with what the most fundamental elements and functions a cell has to have, empirically, a child could understand.

A couple things from early in this topic:
The idea that conditions would have to be "perfect" isn't entirely correct. This would only be true if all life was somehow predestined to reach the current state we perceive today, and conditions had to be and remain perfect for life to progress to this time. As Engineer brought up early in the debate, there still isn't agreement as to what all constitutes life. Not all life need be rooted in the double helix. And rather than the conditions being perfect for life, I would suggest rather that the life which came to be was perfect for the conditions.


Again, not necessarily true. We could reasonably expect the possibility of life on Earth-like planets. As there has been no identification of life on the moon thus far, it might be a stretch to expect finding any on the moon of such a planet. That being said, it would again be good to remember that we aren't entirely sure of what constitutes life and what doesn't. And regarding abiogenesis we also aren't sure of the catalyst which may have sparked life as we know it here.


Life is only so complex and designed if you take into account a designer or assume for a moment that life is somehow perfect. Again though, looking at life as the byproduct of conditions, it's rather simple to see how life as we know it could come to be by way of "chaotic" situations. There need not be any more design or intended complexity than a mound of playdough coming to resemble the face of Jesus under a presumably consciousless water faucet.


Aliens would no more prove the possibility of abiogenesis than our own existence here. Neither their existence or ours would inherently answer the question of how either of us came to be living forms to begin with.


Not everyone considers time to be linear, nor would such an assumption lead to a concession of "supernatural" existence.

While biogenesis is the norm today, it doesn't account for the origins of life either on Earth or anywhere else throughout the universe. The only way biogenesis is applicable to the overall existence of life is to assume that life has existed infinitely, neither affirming or denying any existence of the "supernatural."

The two recurring problems I see people having with the theory of abiogenesis is the idea that life is somehow too complex or well designed to have come about by chance and the assumption that life can only be defined as we understand organisms known to exist on this planet. I have addressed the former rather simply with the playdough example about the ability of conditions to shape objects or even life. Quark has elaborated the point already in the thread with links explaining order from disorder. Dealing with the latter, I think it is good we remember that we have no conclusive definition for life on our own planet. Just as life here was verly likely shaped by the conditions of this planet, life elsewhere in the universe could very well exist in a different form, shaped by different conditions and circumstances.

While I admit that life is not rooted in the 'double helix' there is a need for nitrogen containing compounds called nitrogenous bases: (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), cytosine (C ) and uracil (U) for the double helix to be formed. This requires RNA to facilitate its formation. This is required for the information in DNA to be expressed and utilized. RNA is used in all biologic functions. We know this from observation and experimentation so there is little room for speculation here. The nucleic acid RNA (ribonucleic acid) has to be present for amino acids (asymmetrical) to produce proteins and nucleic acids.

Now there is a lot of debate about this asymmetrical relationship of nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose. There is no question that this relationship is absolutely necessary for chirality to occur. The problem here is that when they are produced in labs they are symmetrical. Both sides can be produced independently but they are never together. These molecules have to be mirror images of one another even though both sides have identical molecules. My point being.

Life is not chaotic it is orderly and requires replication. Without this you just have a lot of chemicals mixing in an infinite variety. The reason that life must be derived from life (biogenesis) in the minds of most is that this is the only way we have ever seen it happen. "You can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth" as Newton said. Now if amino acids are the mirror image of nucleic acid sugars and this in true of all living things then we are limited to this as fundamental to life. This in my opinion is the fundamental first step and it cannot happen peicemeal, it all has to happen all at once.

Going beyond the double helix, as far as we know only life on this planet is dependent upon the functions seen in DNA and RNA. Just as both are theoretically the result of planetary conditions, it is not unreasonable to expect different planetary conditions and circumstances to lead to a different, or even more efficient, means of life.


Life to the naked eye may not be chaotic today, but what about in the estimated billions of years it has taken life to develop to this point? If humans had evolved to possess four arms and two legs would our typical human today be the oddity rather than vice versa? Many people like to perceive life on this planet to be perfect and orderly. Like other systems demonstrating order from disorder, however, there is no reason to presume that life couldn't have become what we perceive to be orderly by way of disorder and chaos.

Hundreds of million of sperm race to fertlize a single egg for replication of the species with many eggs going unfertilized and many unfertilized eggs going undeveloped. We overlook the chaos of the reproductive process much like many may be overlooking the chaotic origins of life on this planet and elsewhere. It is easy to see perfection and order retrospectively even though it may not be the case.

Have we each become the people we are by way of an orderly, determined system? Or were we shaped by genetic and environmental factors along the way? By that same token, did life come about by way of an orderly system intended to give us what we have today or was it shaped by a myriad of chemical and environmental factors along the way?

Like each individual, there are many factors which may be considered in the origins of life when discussing abiogenesis. It is entirely possible for what we perceive to be order to have originated from disorder, for life to have arisen from non-life and from such a point continued producing more life by way of cell asexual and sexual reproduction.

As chaotic as that may seem, think of the order within each one of those millions of sperm carrying a set of 23 chromosomes protected by a cell wall and mobilized by a flagellum which itself is a complex system of proteins and lipids, fueled by metabolizing carbohydrates in a multi-step cycle which requires a specific enzyme at each step. I'm only scratching the surface of what's happening at the molecular level.

We can speculate ad infinitum but all we know about life is from life itself. It is not 'unreasonable' to expect that life must originate from life since everything that science offers is from insights gleaned from observing how it functions.



There is every reason to presume just that! We have no reason to believe otherwise unless we are going to be presumptive about this. I am not inclined to presume chaos in preference to order but thats an interesting thought if you are an irrationalist.



Yes and there is a substantial amount of empirical evidence to support that you did not occure from chaos. In fact, you are the product of a very rational system of order and not just a radom series of chemical componds.


No! Its not a question of intention its a matter of fact, life is by definition an orderly system and that is the only standard that we have to work from. Again you can imagine anything you like but the truth is more demanding.



How is it 'entirely possible' for chaos to produce life? I must have missed the part where you qualified that statement. Also for a cell to 'asexual and sexual' produce you have to have a cell in the first place. This isn't my opinion its a scientific fact.

The evidence for life on this planet does not span the lifetime of the planet of itself. What we have is evidence that life appeared on this planet over one billion years after the formation of the planet itself. If you or anyone else is going to presume that life can only come from life, then what external source of life did the life on this planet come from?


Order comes from disorder every single day on this planet and throughout the universe, phaedrus. Information for this has already been provided by Quark and you can certainly find more through personal research on chaos theory. And I'm completely aware that there must be a cell first or I wouldn't have said life continued by reproduction following abiogenetic process.

That leap you made Abs like Jesus from the formation of the earth 4.55 billion years ago to the first traces of biochemicals 3.85 billion years ago, to the oldest fossils 3.7 billion years ago are what this debate is all about. 150 million years it took biochemicals to transpose into RNA and a ridiculously complex (if not impossible) process of chemical evolution had to occur. RNA with a ribosome catalyst, DNA like capabilities and genetic replication capabilities have to 'spotaneously generate' in that amount of time. Any outside source like meteorites from Mars laced with organisms and such had to be developed or evolve in someway, somewhere, somehow. That's why I am assuming a closed system and the possibility of outside sources are irrelevant.

"The origin of life is the origin of evolution, which requires replication, mutation, and selection. Replication is the hard part. Once a genetic material could replicate, life could have taken off". (Stanley Miller)

Here's a general outline of how life would have to form from nonliving chemical evolution:

1. The amino acids of life and the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose in superimposed chains (asymmetrical mirror images of one another). would have to spontaneously generate creating a process called chirality. By spontaneoulsly I mean of about 150 million years. We know this for organic deposits in quartz crystals that are rich in the carbon isotopes found in organisms, dated about 3.85 billion years. The oldest actual fossils are called stromatolites dated about 3.7 billion years ago.

2. A pre-RNA chemical molecule called peptide nucleic acid (PNA) with the nitrogenous bases emanating from a simple amino acid glycine. and this will take the chemical evolution from the 'primordial soup' to 'crepe' that is cooked like French crepes in superheated thermovents deep inside the ocean.

3. RNA (the information molecule) develops when nucleotides form into chains and somehow draw in other nucleotides to form a complementary strands and RNA is born. Supposedly this happened about four billion years ago. Of course RNA must be able to synthesis themselves and then you have catalyst that jumpstarted life. Its terrible unfair and unfortunate that no fossils or descendants of these versitle little buggers exist but thats life.

4. RNA must build proteins from amino acids mysteriously produced in a chilirity formation complete with the ribosome to spark the properties of enzymes. Also they must do the job of DNA and transfer the genetic information since DNA hasn't evolved yet. Then BOOM! life has spontaneously generated from non-living chemical molecules AKA Abiogenesis. . You may wonder why some people are skeptical about this even being possible but there is good reason not just blind presumption.

I can see why you would have to resort to chaos theory to establish that this is even mathematically possible. I don't know if a vibrations from butterflies wings fluttering in Mexico can progressively grow in force to produce tornados in Brazil or if a monkey at a typewritter could produce the Lords Prayer. However, I would find it far less incredible then the above scenario. If you think I over simplifying this you are absolutely right. For a more thourghly scientific description of one aspect of this you might check out the link at the bottom of the page. APS is the source and they are doing research and experiments along these lines.




RNA: The prebiotic link to all life?

The passing of much time and the fact some of these things may have been prey even would make evidence collection a dubious task. We are talking about small things here that did not posses bones or were not vertebrates, mostly just a collection of various chemicals. I hate to barge in on the discussion, but it seems that a loop is getting going of nonsense. Some simple new leaps by the field that gives the information could change this debate radically, and to date the only thing anyone can do is make an assumption an accept one of the origins put forward, why it cant be multiple is beyond me, and to date no one can answer the question of how it was all in the beginning, if even that exists. Time really is nothing more then the living ability for some forms of life to make a recording of this continuum, or the universe in a physical sense, beginning and end are rather human terms that in themselves cant be proven, its all rather poppycock if you ask me. We seem to get stuck on the human side more then the side of any advancement, i guess its cause we have this thing called a brain and well you get the rest i assume

Not to ruin this debate, just trying to keep an open air to it is all.
I guess what I am really trying to get at is there is the true human element behind reality as we see it as an individual or a society then there is the temporary version of it or the copy of such in a different form, for instance the parts of this debate are in a nifty three versions of something human I guess, is that all there is, is there more then three popular ideas, what of all the rest and all the other religions and such that try to explain it, or is this the very refined version of all those concepts, put to new words. Are these concepts open to change by chance? I would gather it is impossible to remove the human element from such, or define all the dynamics that could exist, but it is not impossible to try and monitor it in yourself.

General order from chaos does occur naturally, such as weather patterns on other planets that we can monitor, or knowing how gravity will move things in relation to different bodies, but that starts to get into physics and various things operating together, such as ice sitting in room temperature, still it is a human observation.

It all had to come from somewhere/It all had to come from someone. What a difference one part of a compound word makes!

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I think the chicken came first, and that it had to be created. But it makes sense that a process took place in order for a chicken to develop. Enter evolution.

Biogenesis and abiogenesis both take an act of faith to be believed, since we weren't there to observe the process and we cannot live long enough to witness the continuing process. So take your pick.

But it makes sense to examine the evidence that is made available to us.

The somewhere/someone, chicken/egg irregardless of the differences have one thing in common. RNA. RNA or a similar molecule has to encode information, replicate and change for chemical componds to become living things. Prebiotic simulations have produced all the right chemicals but not RNA probably because the actual formula is from the mind of God. Brilliant in vitro experiments produce certain RNAs that are 'self-splicing' but without intelligent design, and I do mean genius, chaos produces disorder every single time.




Catalytic RNA in modern biology



This comes as close as anything I can find of think of to sum up the fallacy within the Abiogenesis premise. None of these simulations or scenerios are without human rationalization. None of these processes can occur without intelligent design in labs or in reality. My point is just this; chaos produces random disorder because there is nothing to facilitate an orderly system. Chemicals mix in an infinite variety of componds but life boils down to a single formula. Replication + metabolism = life and this cannot happen by chance, there must be an intelligent design. I do agree wholeheartedly with one point made. You can monitor the human element in this with a highly under rated concept - in a word - reason.

Agreed.


Personally, I believe that a diety is "alive". So, no, I believe that it was biogenesis even at the very beginning of life here on this planet.

Let me throw some questions out, what evidence is there that abiogenesis occured at the very beginning? Did it only occur "at the beginning", or can it also occur elsewhere in history?

Bold emphasis mine

What is so ridiculously complex or impossible about it? It isn't as though RNA or any other steps toward life had to be taken in any particular amount of time. Unless someone restricts themselves to religious ideology such as predestination there was no blueprint to life that required either RNA or DNA on this planet after its formation. There was no more a requirement for RNA or DNA to form than there was a requirement for any development of the two to endure and evolve to the life we now see across our planet.

Any outside source like meteorites laced with organisms still doesn't answer the question between biogenesis and abiogenesis as to where the origins of life lie. Were that the case, the question still remains as to whether such organisms came from other lifeforms and whether any other lifeforms came from others or were generated from non-living matter.


What you are outlining would better be described as what likely could have happened, but certainly not what would have to happen. Again, you are presuming that any abiogenetic process somehow had to proceed in precisely the way in which it did for life to arise on this planet. Were there some presupposed destination for chemical reactions and RNA development perhaps the chances would seem as absurd as you make them out to be, but there wasn't.


It's mathematically possible without chaos theory, phaedrus. I mentioned chaos theory because you took it upon yourself to ask how it would be possible for life to come from chaos, or order to come from disorder. Studies in chaos theory have provided numerous examples of order coming from disorder.


Prebiotic simulations don't have the luxury of producing exactly the same conditions present at any such development, nor do they have the luxury of a few million years in which to work, much less one hundred million or more. And as has already been mentioned more than once, chaos does not produce disorder every single time.


Says you. Once you grasp the concept that there was no requirement for any prebiotic chemicals or chemical reactions to ever form RNA or for RNA to ever proceed into more complex lifeforms, there is no life order which disorder must work to achieve anymore than the order achieved in other chaotic systems. Life need not boil down to a single formula or even one hundred formulas. For the formula which we recognize for life on this planet, you are making a mistake by presuming this formula already existed somehow prior to chemical reactions generating it. There is no need for "an intelligent design" or a "mind of God" unless you are restricting yourself to ideas predestination, religious or otherwise.

Edited for response:There is no conclusive evidence for either biogenesis or abiogenesis for the origins of life. There is the chance, though, coupled with the absence of any other lifeforms known upon the formation of the planet. There is still, as phaedrus has mentioned, the possibility of meteoric organisms, but that still leaves the question of such potential organisms' origins. There's nothing to say that abiogenesis couldn't have occurred more than once in more than one place.

All I can do with this word salad is try to focus on the one term that could clarify, i.e. 'blueprint'. DNA is the genetic blueprint and RNA develops this pattern to form the genetic codes for all living cells. This is absolutely ubiquitious (constant) to all life and this is the fundamental difference between organic chemical composition and living organisms. The reason I keep using the term 'spotaneously generate' is because this cannot happen piecemeal it must happen simultaneously. If we can't nail this down then there is no clear issue to debate.

Lets try this again; Biogenesis literally means bio 'life' + genesis 'origin', I was interested in the historical and modern scientific experimentation in prebiotic simulations and RNA research, thats what interested me in the debate. I didn't even stop to think that unless there is a definition of the central term is so vague that the debate is just a nebulas cloud of supposition. A living organism has to acquire energy to support growth and functions and to reproduce. There are a number of philosophical differences about the semantics of living and non-living but there is no question as to the key characteristics of life in Biology :

1. Organization- The three-dimensional structure of proteins (conformation) which are variations of the 20 amino acids that must be asymmetrical (mirror images of one another). I finally figured out where this chaos theory fixation is coming from. Creationists have made the claim that the chances of these amino acids coming together in the asymmetrical configuration is 1 in 10^40 which is a one with 40 zeros. In the mathematical science of probability 10^50 is considered impossible. In response many evolutionists have countered with the probability statistics of chaos theory. I think we should agree on a fundamental definition of life before getting into something this esoteric.

2. Energy use and metabolism- Enzymes are proteins that accelerate chemical reactions that are the fuel for life processes. This is absolutely required for every aspect of life.

3. Maintenance of internal constancy- Life is a balance between catabolism and anabolism which are, basically, over and under production of essential elements.

4. Reproduction, growth, and development- This is why RNA is so important because replication is the key. Thats why all the cutting edge research is focusing on RNA. RNA is a single stand that can 'self-replicate' as the link to one of the leading research groups affirms.

5. Irritability and adaption (response to environment)- This is the over-used natural selection mechanism in evolution and includes sense perception. We might get into the more advanced implications of this element if we can get the basics clarified.

I fully appreciate the informal nature of a debate in a forum like AD. Neverthelessl, in a forum category called 'science and technology' there should be a scientific definition for the central term. You would find with minimal effort that the above definition is the one used in modern biology, agreed to by all biologists and denied by none. All five elements must be present at the some time. It has to be simultaneous and consequently cannot be piecemeal. Otherwise the product of the randomized molecules coming together to form the chemical composition of one part could not be replicated.

P.S. I may have to reconsider this chaos theory thing, COLTS WIN IN OVERTIME!!!!

RNA = A nucleic acid similar to that of DNA, thought the deoxyribose acid is replaced with ribose sugar and all thymine bases are replaced with uracil. RNA is a ital component of protein synthesis as it is able to read the genetic blueprint found in DNA to make.

Nucleic Acid = A molecule consisting of many nucleotides which in turn, form a polynucleotide chain, a nucleic acid.

Nucleotide Sequence = The order in which nucleotides are situated in a chain relative to one another, which in future will provide the template of a particular amino acid, therefore making the order of the nucleotide sequence important.

Nucleotide = These are organic molecules that are sequenced with one another to create the genetic information of our bodies. They consist of 1) A pentose sugar 2) phosphate and 3) An Organic Base - Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine or Uracil.

Amino acid = Amino acids are transcribed from DNA and form proteins when connected in chains. 20 of these amino acids are common in proteins.


Transfer RNA (tRNA) = A type of RNA molecule with the duty of each unique tRNA molecule to carry a unique amino acid to the ribosome for protein synthesis. tRNA molecules are commonly known as anticodons, which are complimentary to mRNA (codons).




online biology dictionary


Stromatolites are the oldest known fossils, dating back more than 3 billion years. They are colonial structures formed by photosynthesizing cyannobacteria and other microbes. Stromatolites are prokaryotes(primitive organisms lacking a cellular nucleus) that thrived in warm aquatic environments and built reefs much the same way as coral does today. Cyannobacteria were likely responsible for the creation of earth's oxygen atmosphere. They were the dominant lifeform on Earth for over 2 billion years. Today they are nearly extinct, living a precarious existence in only a few localities worldwide.


Nucleus - Organelle = The nucleus of a cell contains all the genetic information required to perform the functions within an organism and is found within the nuclear membrane.

-----------------------------------------------------

procaryote

I'm going to assume that the above definition for life is acceptable and we are now focusing on the functions that facilitate living systems, RNA in particular. Your general outline is good Nileriver but the details are a little vague.

First, The macromolecules vital to life are; lipids (fats, oils, waxes), Carbohydrates (Sugars, starch, glycogen etc.), proteins (blood, antibodies, chemical reactions in a cell ...etc.), Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA).

The proteins are made up of the 20 amino acids that are the building blocks of life. If you do not have this you have no building material. Now the organism has to know which amino acids to string together to make a particular protein. This requires the biochemical Nucleic acid which brings us to our DNA and RNA.

DNA like RNA is a string of nucleotides of nitrogenous bases. These bases are: adenine (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), cytosine (C ), and uracil (U). DNA exists in complimentary strands (asymmetrical, mirror image) with A connecting to T, C with G and a complimentary strand (T). It is three dimensional and resembles a spiral staircase. This is the blueprint that enables the molecule to replicate. RNA is composed of A, C, G, and U. The difference here is that it has Ribose instead of Deoxyribose thus the acronyms, and and the base uracil in place of thymine. Information stored in DNA is copied to RNA (transcription) this is proteins are assembled (translation). This is the key to the whole thing, protein production and thus replication. That is why RNA is considered the link between organic chemical compounds and living systems. That is how it is done in all cells during replication.

Watson and Crick had this to say about the flow of information from the primary to the secondary cell via the RNA calling it 'the central dogma' , Francis Crick explained this once, "The specificity of a piece of nucleic acid is expressed solely by the sequence of its bases, and this sequence is the code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein." (Francis Crick, 1957)

This is where I part company with main stream science. They invision a pre-biotic world of RNA transposing, self splicing, mutating, doubling as DNA and by some means, self-replicating. While this is as close as biology will get in our lifetime to an explanation for the chemical compounds forming cells it fails as empirical science. This would be Abiogenesis if it could be qualified empirically and as I've said before and provided links to support this does not happen in nature, ever. They can reproduce the chemical composition in parts and the RNA self-splicing in parts but living from non-living things is supposition not science. The formation of the amino acids in the proper configuration is itself next to impossible. That would make in my mind, the further leap in logic of life coming from radomized chemical anomalies, absolutely absurd.

I cut and pasted those definitions from the link i posted.

Another thing is you deny that we are product of abiogenesis, so how can we not say its possible if we are here, but in your mindset it cant be. So for another example, we are talking about finding new life from a process that very easily could be a food source or be part of existing families, or that new forms of life discovered may be a new form of life, but with no way to prove it.

We are also talking about reproducing in a laboratory all the conditions that occurred over earth on the scale of millions or billions of years, i seriously doubt the ability of current science to fully recreate such conditions in a laboratory, or even be aware of all that would be required.

Also the development of life, why would something like that need to occur, why would life at one point be nothing more then simple bacteria, why would something like that need to occur, how does that fit into any current theories? why did life on earth have to develop from forms of itself like foam on a beachhead.

pheadrus, you ask a question that cant be fully answered by the people who work in the field, but does that mean conclusions should be jumped to, and that still does not explain the need for development and the complexity of life growing as time goes on.

Not to throw more wood in the fire but...

For those who consider there wasn't enough time on Earth to form the complex molecules...

Remember there's a whole lot of space out there, and every day tons of meteorites fall on the Earth -- That is why they called the NASA X-ray satellite Chandra -- because Dr. Chandra proposed the basic stuff of life actually came from the heavens... the interstellar space that is.

And we barely understand what other forms of "life" may be out there that do _not_ use RNA, DNA, etc. If there were any such other forms on Earth, they were already probably replaced by the current forms as a process of Natural Selection made them more efficient.

Think about this: if there is a microorganism out there that replicates every 100 years, and consumes silica, and lives 6000 ft under the Earth's mantle, plus is as small as a virus, and doesn't interact with carbon-based life, we don't have a nano chance of even detecting it! SO the whole life depends on RNA/DNA thing is kind of like the Earth Center of the Universe thing...

Fact is... we barely have a good definition of life!

Most Masters Degree level biology books don't even mention a lot of life forms about which most scientist know almost nothing. Some are bundled into names like "plastoids" and the term "idiosyncratic" meaning "we don't have a clue" is all over the medical dictionaries -- look up psoryasis for example.

The mad cow disease is caused by a single organic molecule which is not even supposed to survive fire and much less make "healthy" molecules mutate, but it does! We "say"it's not alive...but... Isn't that just us talking?

-- my two cents --

Its a mystery my dear Nileriver and the game is afoot.I see no reason to believe we are products of chaos or a chemical roulette wheel. Life is not an abberation or one variable among an infinite varity. Life procedes from life in Biology (and only from life) every time and nothing in science is contrary to that view. Most explanations about lifes origins in Biology focus on two primary hypothesis: Spontaneous generation and Meteorites . Neither explanation fits the facts of empirical science with regards to what has been established through observation and experimentation. Again the above elements of life must happen all at once not peicemeal.

I have made it clear that I do not subscribe to the spontaneous generation hypothesis as a suitable explanation for the origins of life on this planet. I also reject the assumption that it becomes more plausable if you spread it over millions of years. There is also the hypothesis that biochemicals of life came from space. Up to now I was assuming a closed system but no discussion on the origins of life would be complete without the cosmic explanation AKA the meteorite hypotheses.


The Murchison meteorite and chiral molecules

In science a hypothesis has to be formed in such a way proven or disproven. Abiogenesis has formed many such hypothesis and have failed to produce life from non-living organic molecules, this should be telling us something. its elementary even.

Progressive change and lifes origins

Current genetics has uncovered various switches if you will or changes in the dna itself that yields large scale changes in the life form it belongs to, such as legs. This is also true and part of empirical study. Darwin was the first in his field basically to try and put together something like the theory of evolution, which has changed i might add since then.

Once again, i doubt sciences current ability to model perfectly what or how life came to be on this planet from the stance of abiogenesis, they simply are not able as of yet to reproduce fully the various variables known and unknown, and we still have to leave out the time factor.

Once again we have found basic life or bacteria in most every conceivable environment on the earth. The differences in these systems are very broad to say the least, but in some areas it seems that life never really got much past the bacteria form i guess.

Genetics can map the relation of life on this planet, that is also something funny, and why only at certain times are people able to discover the emergence of certain life forms, or that certain life forms did not exist at one point. It points to a development and i guess a beginning, which is the stuff of this debate. Again i feel that it is silly to rule anything out, or accept anything either.

The RNA world

The RNA is supposed to have done the work of a ribosome, DNA, self-splice, self replicate, build proteins and all this from amino acids that supposedly came about by random chance. There is nothing to suggest that RNA is capable of any of this, let alone all. This all had to happen at once, life isn't a machine or a computer you don't put it together piece by piece, all pieces are mutually dependant and it you don't have all the elements at once its just chemicals. Abiogenesis advocates would have you believe that some imaginary magic RNA had virtually supernatural abilities that no known RNA has . Science is not magic and nothing that is beyond the range of observation and experimentation is considered 'known' in empirical science. Lets consider what is being assumed about the RNA miracle molecule



I don't know why the universe has to be self-creating. Science is supposed to be a discipline that dispells preconceptions and establish repeatable, empirical, observable facts. The picture this abiogenesis theory is not being drawn from nature, its fantasy.

Inset quotation belonging to me

What my "word salad" was trying to get across to you is the fact that neither RNA or DNA had to do anything prior to doing what they did. There is, as of yet, no known universal law(s) from before Earth's formation, or before the formation of life on Earth, which declared that RNA or DNA must either work together or ever progress in anyway to form living organisms.

Five elements referred to below

I haven't seen anything presented supporting your claim that life couldn't have been constructed "piecemeal." What you have shown is not that all of these elements have to come together simultaneously but rather all of them must be present for something to be considered alive. There are plenty of non-living objects which possess at least one or a couple of the elements you listed. Since they don't possess them all they are not considered living, but this does not mean that all of the five elements must have come together simultaneously in the past for life. It means only that all of them must have been possessed at some point in time, whether they were acquired all at once or one at a time.

The five elements from original posting:

• Organization
  
• Energy use and metabolism
  
• Maintenance of internal constancy
  
• Reproduction, growth, and development
  
• Irritability and adaption (response to environment)
  

Emphasis mine

Actually considering the theory of abiogenesis, there was no particular string of amino acids necessary to make particular proteins, thus no particular string for anything in nature "to know." Not every string of amino acids had to produce relevant proteins and not every protein development had to in anyway contribute to the construction of life on this planet. Rather than knowing some inherent universal code (or 'proper configuration'), different chemical reactions and structuring of amino acids could simply have proven more successful than others leading to life as we know it.

Regarding the claim that the idea of abiogenesis is "supposition not science," I might remind phaedrus and others that theories are indeed science. There didn't have to be any "proper configuration" prior to a configuration for life occurring. Rather than a configuration representing the means for life prior to doing so, life could simply be the unknown byproduct of particular configurations and other occurrences.


There is no conclusive evidence which shows life to not be an "aberration" or one variable among an infinite variety, phaedrus. At least most known forms of life today may proceed from other life, but such laws regarding biogenesis, as has been mentioned before, still have nothing to say about the origins of life on this planet.


Abiogenesis is a theory, not a hypothesis. The inability to do in less than a century what is proposed to have happened over millions of years (or more) is not going to single handedly get a theory tossed out without anything provided to discount/disprove the theory.


Since you're only going to keep repeating how you believe abiogenesis couldn't have happened because you simply can't believe that life is the product of undirected variables and piece meal construction of different chemicals and amino acids, what alternative do you suggest with evidence to support such an alternative? From what I have seen you haven't done anything different from what quarkhead indicated at the start of this topic, choosing only to assault the theory of abiogenesis rather than to offer a viable alternative with any more evidence than the theory of abiogenesis possesses.

Here is a site that addresses in more detail some of the misconceptions about abiogenesis theory I've seen you present thus far. For all your use of adjectives to make the possibility seem impossible, it is not impossible at all for there to have been at the beginning a self-replicating molecule or independently working RNA. It need not be "supernatural," "imaginary" or a "miracle."

Thats because you have failed to understand that, in the words of Stanley Miller, 'replication is the key'. This is not just with regards to biology, all of science is based on this. I have cited extensive research that has supported this from leaders in the field. There are no 'numerous, successive, slight modifications,' that stand up to close examination. There are on the other hand scientific laws of demonstration that are contrary to life emerging from non-living organic molecules. Either it is observable and repeatable or it is not science and life is never been observed to have come about in this way. Never, not once, not even a little bit.



Random occurences of various parts of organic molecules are not self-replicating. Concievably it could happen once but the progress would not accumulate because it cannot replicate except in living organisms. To deny this is to deny the fundamental difference between living and non-living in the working definition that biologists base there science on in the first place.



This is patently false and impossible to support from biology or any other science. Nineteen of the 20 amino acids of life, and the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose, are asymmetric. These asymetric configurations are essential to chirility and the only way protiens are ever produced in living cells. To say anything is pure supposition and fantasy. Natural science from Louis Pasteur to today has proven this conclusivly but you have to learn the science.



That Abs like Jesus is precisly what that means. "A distinctive set of characteristics distinguishes the living from the nonliving. Together, they enable an organism to aqcauire energy to support its growth and functioning, and to reproduce, perpetuating life. " (Taken from an article by Ricky Lewis, she holds PH.D. in genetics from I.U. and has written literally thousands of articles on genetics and life science. Rickilewis@nasw.org)

Again, if we do not have a definition for life then we have nothing to debate. I don't recall there ever being a science that was based on supposition and mere opinion. All the elements have to be present at once, there has to be a definition for life for the words 'biology' and 'biogenesis' to have any meaning.

Apart from supposition there is nothing to support abiogenesis as a theory, a hypothesis or even a remote possibility. It isn't even an educated guess unless dogmatic opinion somehow qualifies.

Every inorganic chemist, bioinorganic chemist, and organic chemist I have had the pleasure of discussing this topic with has stated that the idea of silicon-based life forms is a wild supposition. Silicon has the same valency as carbon, but it is much less stable, and undergoes many more spontaneous reactions which lead to the decompostion of silicon-based molecules.

Pheeler wrote:

"Every inorganic chemist, bioinorganic chemist, and organic chemist I have had the pleasure of discussing this topic with has stated that the idea of silicon-based life forms is a wild supposition."

Agree, which is my point, that they won't be looking out for this organism, nor it will appear in their radars. Organist chemist-- by definition -- is a chemist that specializes in the chemistry of carbon-based compounds.

What I meant to emphasize is our lack of understanding of the limits of life possibilities. There are actually millions of sub-surface bacteria -- carbon based, that's true -- living at oil-well depths inside the crust. And in extremely hot springs... and near volcanic vents at extreme pressures. They live between extremes of cold and heat that should render even carbon-based chemistry unstable.

I am not trying -- nor feel capable -- to settle the life-from-life versus life-from-non-life issue on the basis of current scientific knowledge. Just stating that the definition of life itself, may make the difference in the answer.

There is a search underway by researchers to study what is called 'extremophiles' (microorganisms that live in extreme conditions). The reason is that DNA copying enzyme (protein that speeds up specific chemical reaction) is critical to mass-production of genetic material. It also has had an impact on how life is classified into major groups (taxonomy). They are studying organisms in Arctic pools, Indonesian volcanoes, Costa Rican jungles, the rock beneath the Savannah River in South Carolina and Yellowstone National Park. This is in no way effecting the general characteristics of life in the definition allready offered. It is however, opening up all kinds of questions about what kind of conditions life is capable of, not only surviving, but actually thriving in. The implications for evolution are legion.



Extremeophiles as cell factories

While this would make a fascinating thread on biotechnology I think its signifigance in our debate are related to how life is suspected to have orignated. The rational goes something like this: The harsh enviroment of Earth is thought to have provided mixed prebiotic chemical collections and minerals from the Earth's interior. These minerals provid energy, catalysts, physical molds, and the building blocks of life. That is a tall order to be sure but the prebiotic experiments discussed earlier were meant to simulate these extreme conditions in a smoker and then transfer the results into artifical seawater producing amino acids and other organic molecules. The reason extremeophiles are relevant is because the prebiotic soup is thought to have been transformed by circulating through thermal vents. This would have destroyed the molecules of life but concievable could have produced a primordial 'soup' that was in effect cooked in clay by the sun (condensation) and the catalysis from iron pyrite (fools gold) produced nucleic acids that ultimatly transposed into RNA. I find this scenerio fantasitic in the extreme (no pun intended) and impossible to reconcile to established scientific facts. On the other hand, if it wasn't so far fetched it wouldn't be so easy to seperate the scientific facts from the fiction.

Things that need addressing:
Meteorites - I have read a little bit on this and see it as only a way to take the argument out of perspective. It was found that our atmosphere was abundant with bacterial life and so the first conclusion was that it had been left by meteorites falling to earth from millions of miles away and not the far more likely and actual answer that bacteria being so light had been thrown up into the air by wind currents. One is wishful thinking and the other is down to earth.

Chaos theory (and entropy) - The observation that everything is winding down and becoming more and more chaotic over time, not more and more ordered overall.
My stance is thus, that how can so much order be observed if everything will move into more and more chaos. Abiogenesis stance, although chaos is prevelant it only dictates the general trend of everything overall and not the actual result of a particular system, in our case, the earth. But so much without a law to govern it?

The link, Quarkhead, that you have pointed to about chaos theory says nothing about the real world, how easy is it for a coin to come up with four consecutive flips the same, and how difficult is it to converge several hundred chemicals which all interact with each other even in a million billion situations and produce something unrandom and ordered. Also Tooth Picks have no order in them at all, they would no form any structure, but atoms as GenX_Futurist has sayed possess in some sense an intelligience in that they bond with each other and form things bigger than tehmselves with other properties and so can produce order but not enough to form even simple replicators which we haven't even been able to theories about how they came into being?
The universe will move to more and more chaos and only intelligience has ever ordered anything in this universe.
Your car analogy, let us say the car is the universe and something turns the key in the ignition and life in a loose sense of the word is now in the car. Yet the car has this already built in and would not work if one part was missing, it had to be designed to produce life or made to give life. So this debate is really about whether a God made the universe with laws to make life or made life without laws and left life continue as it does now. So can life come from non-life? This was the original question and you keep pointing out all your doing is defending abiogeneetic evidence but have not seen evidence for biogenesis but it is observed all around you (as stated in the opening post for that matter). What more evidence can we give you but our Earth, The abundance of life from life and the lack of life from non-life points in one direction only. Down .


Silicon - (does not really need discussing) it has been experimented on and really does not possess the properties for life (except in startrek where captain Kirk bumps into a silicon based life form on his travels) as it's molecules are even more unstable than carbon and you lot can't even come up with a way to make life from these. Chemistry I think is quite a firmly seated subject and should be able to formulate a way to make life from chemicals, the atom and elements have been classified and reactions of all sorts documented but nothing to give rise to the support of abiogenesis. It has been said that life took form over millions of years but if the molecules are so unstable this cannot be true. Either it came about very quickly all of a sudden with everything in place at once by chance or it was put together by a divine being, the supernatural. God!


Life replicates, seeing as life does not go on perpetually within one life form it must replicate to be considered life, or at least be able to replicate. So far only conjecture has surfaced as to how replication could have arisen without a law or the supernatural and this is how it will stay.


I had this debate with a friend of mine a number of years ago and he had the notion that life would evolve everywhere and fit its surroundings but I find this hard to believe unless a law can be shown to exist unless it's the law of God.

Does anyone think science will one day produce life from nothing in replicable experiments mimicing a theoretical ancient world supposedly without intelligience?