Abiogenesis anyone?

[Uncle Martin]

Irish,
Since you asked for my opinion on this I'll put in what little I have.

My definition of life; That which metabolizes and self-replicates/reproduces. The thing most creationists do is try to go from non-living directly to living, I think there were some steps leading from one to the other, what exactly these were I don't know. Biologists ague where to draw the line between living and non-living even with modern forms, ie; some consider viruses to be living,... some think otherwise.

Considering that evolution IS a very real occurrence, if we extrapolate in reverse we come to the first life, this is the only logical conclusion. Many theories are being investigated to learn more, but this is a daunting task and much has yet to be discovered. Starting with simple elements and naturally occurring compounds and an environment that we can only speculate on I think it is plausible for life to form, not instantly, but eventually. What evidence do I have to support this you ask? WE ARE HERE.

Of course we may be looking in the wrong place for the origin of life, as far as forming from chemistry. It may have arrived here as well formed bacteria on a comet, meteorite, or in a contaminated alien probe for all we know. 4 billion years from now intelligent Martians may be scratching their heads wondering how life formed in such an inhospitable environment, how could they know we sent Earth born bacteria there?

What it comes down to is; life exists. It apparently had to form somewhere, somehow. That which we do not know at present outweighs that which we do know, but we are advancing. To me it is much more reasonable to accept that some things remain unknown than to invent a completely implausible answer that only makes things more complicated than they need to be.

If the reason for this thread was to strengthen your stance on creation,... well done. You chose a good topic.

[IrishEyes]

Unc and FreeT,
It really bothers me that you BOTH have insinuated ulterior motives for this topic. Besides being very interested in what you all have to say on this particular topic, and besides it being very interesting, I also started this topic as a spinoff from another topic. Remember the first post?

Ok, as this question is not getting answered in any other thread right now, and there are no other topics that cover this right now that I can find, I'd like to open up this can of worms in a brand new topic.

It wasn't as a way to laugh at 'unbelievers' and say, "Your 'I don't know' is pathetic". Nor was it a way for me to 'strengthen my belief', by asking a question that seems to have not been answered categorically by anyone. Frankly, I'm highly insulted by both of your attitudes. I don't think I was rude, insulting, or anything of the sort at any time in this thread. Nor did I try to make fun of ANYONE for their beliefs, regardless of whether ANYONE could support ANY of their beliefs with ANY type of facts/proof.
You guys need to chill out and try to understand that some of us just like to learn about other points of view, without any underlying motives, and WITHOUT the need to ridicule anyone for what they choose to believe or accept as truth.

Telemad and Gahd, thank you both VERY MUCH for supplying your views, and for all of the information that you feel best supports your views. While I don't understand everything that has been presented in full detail, it has been an incredibly educational experience, and I thank you for the time you put into your responses!

Tormod, what can I say? You're still my favorite fearless leader (even though you seem to hate it when I call you that!).

[Uncle Martin]

I meant nothing insulting,... please don't take it that way. It's just that we have come to know each other a bit and if the tables were turned.... well you get the idea. There is an amazing amount of creationist arguments that revolve around this topic,.... I really do think it would be good ammo for you. Not that you really need any more than the 30 megaton mouth you already posess.

Note: huge smile while posting the above remark. HUMOR! Just so there are no misunderstandings.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Unc and FreeT,

It really bothers me that you BOTH have insinuated ulterior motives for this topic. Besides being very interested in what you all have to say on this particular topic, and besides it being very interesting, I also started this topic as a spinoff from another topic. Remember the first post?

Irish. When I first read this post I was upset with my self. I would not have expected myself to have responded in the fashion that you suggest I did.

So I went back to your original post on this thread and my first reply.

Guess what I found?

My response was an attempt to respond the most accurately I could. I started it out by explaining WHY I could not answer the question as you had constructed it. It required too many assumptions and was too ambiguous.

Plus your own intitial post included a REQUIREMENT for

Originally posted by: IrishEyes(life: #4 The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence ;

a spiritual component in the discussion. So now you get upset if my response mentions god?

Maybe life has not even begun yet. We can not prove that we are other than deterministic agents.

Perhaps an extreme example, but a line has to be drawn someplace.

Dawkins speaks of the Selfish gene. That evolution is about nothing more than successful continuation of the selfreplicator. The greatest variety of possible mutations provides the greatest chance of at least one of them existing thru almost any environment.

We coud regress it even further. Continued existence of the particle?

We need to agree on where the line is or at least agree about what range of events we are dicsussing.

So that is what I posted.

I even ended with

Originally posted by: Freethinker
And for now that is my personal opinion.

Tormod even ditto'd my response.

But you did not answer my questions, did not provide more details as to where we could draw the line. Instead you seemed to nit pik specific parts of my reply. So I followed your lead.

You asked for our opinion. I gave it best I could and asked for your opinion for more details.

Care to share them?

[IrishEyes]

8/29/2004 10:19 PM - Uncle Martin
I meant nothing insulting,... please don't take it that way. It's just that we have come to know each other a bit and if the tables were turned.... well you get the idea. There is an amazing amount of creationist arguments that revolve around this topic,.... I really do think it would be good ammo for you. Not that you really need any more than the 30 megaton mouth you already posess.
Note: huge smile while posting the above remark. HUMOR! Just so there are no misunderstandings.

Thanks, Unc, but again, you give me too much credit. I wasn't looking for ammo. This wasn't a fishing expedition. And I wasn't trying to make anyone look silly or foolish because they couldn't explain abiogenesis without leaving some questions un-answered. As you have indicated, there is much discussion about this topic. And yes, much of that discussion is from people that believe in creation, but that makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, *if* evolution explains the origin of MAN, then something has to explain the origin of LIFE, doesn't it? If it's ok to keep asking questions, then why is it a problem if one of those quesitons is "If life didn't come from a god, where did life come from?" It almost seems like we're back to that line in the sand, where it's ok to question things, up to a certain point, but not if it brings into question any scientific theories that aren't actually fully understood yet.

However, that wasn't what was intended for this topic. I was trying to get the question answered for wisdumn, as he was having no luck getting any answers in another thread. Plus, with so many different personalities in this forum, I thought it would be interesting to see how many different abiogenesis theories were represented.

And as for my 30 megaton mouth, hey - it was specially designed to go with my 40 megawatt smile - what can I say???!!??

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Tormod, what can I say? You're still my favorite fearless leader (even though you seem to hate it when I call you that!).

I am the ultimate FearFUL leader.

[IrishEyes]

Irish. When I first read this post I was upset with my self. I would not have expected myself to have responded in the fashion that you suggest I did.

So I went back to your original post on this thread and my first reply..........But you did not answer my questions, did not provide more details as to where we could draw the line. Instead you seemed to nit pik specific parts of my reply. So I followed your lead.

FreeT, I really wasn't trying to nitpick, at least not any more than you normally do
Seriously though, the questions that I asked, for clarification, were exactly that. You made an assumption that my questions were baited, or that I already knew answers and was asking you in order to prove some point. You were wrong. I was asking you to explain which experiments you were referring to, since you didn't mention them by name in your first post. The "WE" question was sort of a joke, but you did carry it to extremes in your follow-up to Tele's reply.

My objections to your tone are in reference to your post that begins "The rest really didn't matter. " and ends "Evolution is not only WRONG but EVIL! ", with a LOT of references to "them" and "they" (which I am assuming means the stupid creationists) thrown in for good measure. I don't feel I was arrogant, mean-spirited, or confrontational during this discussion. Even my first post to you was not rude, even though it might be seen as a tad cheeky. I wasn't trying to ignore your "What is life" question, but I didn't want this discussion to turn into a "life" debate, instead of a discussion on abiogenesis. Do you understand what I mean?

You guys obviously have no idea how in awe I truly am. And just when you get me to start 'thinking' more critically, you stomp me for asking the 'wrong' questions. Thanks, FreeT, this CTRL thing is REALLY great!

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
I mean, *if* evolution explains the origin of MAN, then something has to explain the origin of LIFE, doesn't it?

Yes, indeed. I think your intent here is very good, I do not question it at all. The only problem is that (and now we're back to square one, as FT pointed out) you put a limit on the definition of "life". If we can look away from that, then I think we can get somewhere. Most responses from others have been very good here so I haven't felt the need to participate since I've been busy doing very little for a few days...

If it's ok to keep asking questions, then why is it a problem if one of those quesitons is "If life didn't come from a god, where did life come from?"

It isn't, in my eyes. It is a question I often ask myself (okay, not the first part, but the second part). Life is a mystery. Every time I play with my 14 months old daughter (Emily) I just have to wonder what an incredible mystery the entire "life" thing is, that can produce something like my daughters.

Sorry for not having more to contribute right now.

[IrishEyes]

Tormod, you have said much with few words. If that is what you consider 'not having more to contribute', then that's what you should strive to achieve daily!

I ask myself the same when I watch MY Emile.

I know we've had the "What is life" questions here before, but that wasn't what I wanted this thread to be. Sorry if putting a limit on that subject is seeming to hinder the abiogenesis discussion. I am open to suggestions on limiting or defining "LIFE" for the purpose of this topic, but only if we can agree that defining life will not overtake explaining abiogenesis. Maybe I'm looking for a broader explanation of abiogenesis, while the 'life' question is too specific??? I don't know! Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

Again, thanks to all of you for yout time, effort, and insights. I really appreciate it!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
I am open to suggestions on limiting or defining "LIFE" for the purpose of this topic, but only if we can agree that defining life will not overtake explaining abiogenesis. Maybe I'm looking for a broader explanation of abiogenesis, while the 'life' question is too specific??? I don't know! Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

Even from ME?

I can't find any way to discuss Abiogenesis without discussing what life is. Abiogenesis IS the discussion of LIFE, the point at which we draw the line between when life doesn't exist and then does. If that line was drawn at say Bacteria, then the discsussion becomes whether bacteria is the legitmate spot to draw the line. If not then where? (No I don't think Bacteria is the place to draw the line, just used as an example).

And on a molecular level, I don't see how life could be described. So a discussion of when or how the first molecule of life came into existence does not seem like a valid question.