Basic Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory, Evidence & Examples (1 Viewer)

[seymourflops]

Flops had some questions about abiogenesis, it he didn’t start a thread, so I will. The following is basic information about abiogenesis:

That's a lie. I started a thread in the science and technology section which is where you said you would answer it.

This:

“While Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is about how species change to adapt to their environment, it doesn't address the question of how life began originally. At one point, certainly when the planet was still hot and molten, there was no life on Earth, though we know life evolved later.

The question is, how did early Earth life forms originate?
There are several theories on how the basic building blocks of living organisms came into being. The mechanism of how nonliving matter became self-replicating living organisms and then complex life forms is not fully understood.

It has some gaps, but abiogenesis deals with interesting concepts and makes a start at an explanation.

Abiogenesis, Definition and Overview​

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which living organisms arose from nonliving organic molecules. Simple elements combined to form compounds; the compounds became more structured and involved different substances. Eventually, simple organic compounds were formed and linked to produce complex molecules such as amino acids.
Amino acids are the building blocks of the proteins that form the basis of organic processes. The amino acids could have combined to form protein chains. These proteins could have become self-replicating and formed the basis for simple life forms.
Such a process could not take place on Earth today because the necessary conditions no longer exist. The creation of organic molecules presupposes the presence of a warm broth that contains the substances required for those organic molecules to appear.
Elements and simple compounds such as hydrogen, carbon, phosphates and sugars all have to be present together. An energy source such as ultraviolet rays or lightning discharges would help them bond. Conditions like this may have existed 3.5 billion years ago when life on Earth is thought to have started. Abiogenesis details the mechanisms of how that might have taken place.”

https://sciencing.com/did-protein-dna-rna-come-first-2237.html.j

Is a cut and paste of someone else's words.

Tell me what YOU believe about biogenesis and we can talk. I'm not debating an article writer who isn't here to defend his words.

On second thought, I will. You posted it, you defend it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of the proteins that form the basis of organic processes. The amino acids could have combined to form protein chains. These proteins could have become self-replicating and formed the basis for simple life forms.

Such a process could not take place on Earth today because the necessary conditions no longer exist. The creation of organic molecules presupposes the presence of a warm broth that contains the substances required for those organic molecules to appear.

Elements and simple compounds such as hydrogen, carbon, phosphates and sugars all have to be present together. An energy source such as ultraviolet rays or lightning discharges would help them bond. Conditions like this may have existed 3.5 billion years ago when life on Earth is thought to have started. Abiogenesis details the mechanisms of how that might have taken place.”

Gosh, you seem so sure of yourself, dude. [/sarcasm]

How could they have become self-replicating?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The missing factor is the input of energy supporting an ordered state.

there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

The Earth is an isolated system, isn't it? Why wouldn't it degenerate into a more disordered state? Instead, the life forms on this little isolated planet have increased in complexity and order.

 

[calamity]

The missing factor is the input of energy supporting an ordered state.

There is tremendous energy in the Universe. None of it is missing.

 

[rahl]

If abiogenesis explains how life began, and evolution explains how it came to exist in the complex ecosystems we see on Earth today, what does that say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?




How can the idea that life began as complex molecules and evolved into what we have today and the idea of a natural tendency to a more disordered state both be true? One or the other has to be disproved, does it not?

we aren't in a closed system

 

[Dittohead not!]

we aren't in a closed system

The Earth is not a closed system?
I suppose if you count sunlight coming in, then that's so, but when it comes to life forms, it certainly is a closed system.

 

[rahl]

The Earth is not a closed system?

no

I suppose if you count sunlight coming in, then that's so, but when it comes to life forms, it certainly is a closed system.

no it isn't

 

[watsup]

M

no

no it isn't

Why is it not a closed system?

 

[rahl]

M


Why is it not a closed system?

because it is an open system, as energy and other elements are coming into our system every second of every day and has done so for 4.5 billion years.

 

[seymourflops]

Flops had some questions about abiogenesis, it he didn’t start a thread, so I will. The following is basic information about abiogenesis:

Actually, we need to clear up this lie.

On the "Richard Dawkins says . . . " thread, I asked:

Tell me how that works?

According to the scientists.

Also share any evidence you've seen for abiogenesis?

You said:

Start a thread in the Science forum and we’ll go from there.

So, I did. It is right here:

What is your theory for how abiogenesis happened?

Aniogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. I know, I know, google it, amirate? Apparently @watsup knows how it happened but he will only tell me if I start a thread on this forum.

debatepolitics.com

Please withdraw your lie.

Thank you.

 

[watsup]

Actually, we need to clear up this lie.

On the "Richard Dawkins says . . . " thread, I asked:


You said:


So, I did. It is right here:

What is your theory for how abiogenesis happened?

Aniogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. I know, I know, google it, amirate? Apparently @watsup knows how it happened but he will only tell me if I start a thread on this forum.

debatepolitics.com

Please withdraw your lie.

Thank you.

I did not realize that you had started the thread and so I was wrong when I claimed that you didn’t.

 

[watsup]

because it is an open system, as energy and other elements are coming into our system every second of every day and has done so for 4.5 billion years.

You are expanding the normal understanding of “closed system” which indicates that little to no MATTER escapes Into space. I suppose that you can do so if you want, but we will continue to use the standard definition.

 

[seymourflops]

I did not realize that you had started the thread and so I was wrong when I claimed that you didn’t.

Fair enough, thank you.

From your post:

How life might have originated was first proposed by Russian scientist Alexander Oparin in 1924 and independently again by British biologist J.B.S. Haldane in 1929. Both assumed that early Earth had an environment rich in ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and carbon, the building blocks of organic molecules.

If we can just "assume" conditions that do not exist, why can we not "assume" that a designer is responsible for the design?'

Also:

1. Abiogenesis happens rarely. It happened at least once about 3.5 billion years ago and probably has not occurred since then.
2. Abiogenesis gives rise to the most primitive forms of lifepossible. These may be as simple as replicating protein molecules.
3. Higher organisms evolvefrom these primitive life forms.

What is the evidence that it happened at least once about 3.5 billion years ago?

The evidence?

Your sentence might start, "We know that abiogenesis happened at least once about 3.5 billion years ago because . . . "

Why has it not occurred since? How do we know that it has not?

And:

Scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation, but today even the general public no longer believes that flies come from rotten meat or mice come from garbage. Some scientists also question whether abiogenesis is a valid theory, but they have been unable to propose a better alternative.”

What questions do "some scientists" have about abiogenesis?

The same questions that I have?

More:

The Experimental Basis for Abiogenesis​

In the early 1950s, American graduate student Stanley Miller and his graduate advisor Harold Urey decided to test the Oparin-Haldane abiogenesis theory by recreating an early Earth environment. They mixed the simple compounds and elements from the theory in air and discharged sparks through the mixture.
When they analyzed the resulting chemical reaction products, they were able to detect amino acids created during the simulation. This evidence that the first part of the theory was correct supported later experiments that tried to create replicating molecules from the amino acids. These experiments were unsuccessful.
Subsequent research found that the prebiotic atmosphere of early Earth probably had more oxygen and fewer other key substances than the sample used in the Miller-Urey experiment. This led to questioning whether the conclusions were still valid.
Since then, some experiments using a corrected atmosphere composition have also found organic molecules such as amino acids, thus supporting the original conclusions.”

Were any of those experiments designed?

Because it sounds an awful lot like they "corrected" the experimental atmosphere to try and make it produce amino acids, to more accurate reflect the "assumed" atmosphere that could produce life, not to make it reflect that actual atmosphere that existed in reality.

In another theory that abandons abiogenesis altogether, scientists have proposed that complex organic compounds or complete life forms such as viruses may have been delivered to Earth by meteorites or comets. Early Earth (primitive Earth) was subjected to heavy bombardment during Hadean time (about 4 to 4.6 billion years ago) when life may have started.
Without more hard data, the only conclusion is that exactly how life on Earthoriginated is still a mystery.”

Delivered.

How is this different from Dawkins' Space Alien Theory?

Why are Space Aliens, Delivery Meteorites and Comets, or any other non-Earthly explanation needed?

Don't say they aren't needed, that is from your post.

That last makes me wonder if you are reading these before you post them.

Can you defend what you posted or not?

 

[rahl]

You are expanding the normal understanding of “closed system” which indicates that little to no MATTER escapes Into space.

No i'm not. We are not a closed system, for the reasons outlined. And yes, matter escapes into space from the earth.

I suppose that you can do so if you want, but we will continue to use the standard definition.

That is the standard definition. The earth, nor any other planet is a closed system.

 

[watsup]

No i'm not. We are not a closed system, for the reasons outlined. And yes, matter escapes into space from the earth.

That is the standard definition. The earth, nor any other planet is a closed system.

“With respect to matter, other than some particles entering Earth’s Atmosphere (meteors) and a few atoms (mainly hydrogen) entering and leaving the top of the Atmosphere in relatively small amounts (with the exception of major impact events occurring every 100 million years or so), the Earth is mostly a closed system.”

Systems Thinking About the Earth System | My NASA Data

Earth is a system of systems.

mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov

 

[seymourflops]

A closed system is theoretical. In reality there is only one "closed system," and that is the universe.

Even that relies on the definition of "universe" as everything physical, known and unknown.

Then, by definition, it is closed.

 

[rahl]

“With respect to matter, other than some particles entering Earth’s Atmosphere (meteors) and a few atoms (mainly hydrogen) entering and leaving the top of the Atmosphere in relatively small amounts (with the exception of major impact events occurring every 100 million years or so), the Earth is mostly a closed system.”

Systems Thinking About the Earth System | My NASA Data

Earth is a system of systems.

mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov

so as your own source shows, the earth is not a closed system.

 

[Dittohead not!]

so as your own source shows, the earth is not a closed system.

Because some matter escapes into space while the Earth is bombarded by meteors, the Earth is not a closed system so the Second law of Thermodynamics does not apply.

Then, the meteors plus the mater escaping into space keeps the Earth's ecosystems from declining into chaos, and, therefore, abiogenesis could have started life on Earth, and that life could have evolved into what it is today by itself.

Is that really the argument being expressed? Abiogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are really compatible?

 

[watsup]

so as your own source shows, the earth is not a closed system.

For certain scientific considerations, it is. That's why I found numerous instances of citing it as a "closed system" for MATTER when I went looking. For instance, with respect to the climate, it is a closed system in that the "air" of the Earth simply does not mix in any relevant manner with the vacuum of outer space. That is why the excess human-produced CO2 will cause our atmosphere to warm rather than allowing such increased warmth to escape to "outer space".

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is tremendous energy in the Universe. None of it is missing.

Precisely. The earth is not an isolated system. It's constantly bathed in energy from the Sun

 

[watsup]

Precisely. The earth is not an isolated system. It's constantly bathed in energy from the Sun

The ATMOSPHERE of the Earth can be considered a closed system because it CAPTURES some of that energy from the sun in human-produced CO2 molecules in the air and thereby causes the warming of the atmosphere. With respect to energy, the Earth can be considered an open system, but with respect to MATTER, it is "mostly" a closed system because very little matter escapes into the vacuum of space.

 

[rahl]

Because some matter escapes into space while the Earth is bombarded by meteors, the Earth is not a closed system so the Second law of Thermodynamics does not apply.

Then, the meteors plus the mater escaping into space keeps the Earth's ecosystems from declining into chaos, and, therefore, abiogenesis could have started life on Earth, and that life could have evolved into what it is today by itself.

Is that really the argument being expressed? Abiogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are really compatible?

yes

 

[rahl]

For certain scientific considerations, it is.

no it isn't

That's why I found numerous instances of citing it as a "closed system" for MATTER when I went looking. For instance, with respect to the climate, it is a closed system in that the "air" of the Earth simply does not mix in any relevant manner with the vacuum of outer space. That is why the excess human-produced CO2 will cause our atmosphere to warm rather than allowing such increased warmth to escape to "outer space".

The earth is not now nor has it ever been a closed system.

 

[calamity]

Precisely. The earth is not an isolated system. It's constantly bathed in energy from the Sun

And, that's not even including high-energy gamma rays.

NASA’s Fermi Spots a Weird Pulse of High-Energy Radiation Racing Toward Earth

On August 26, 2020, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope detected a pulse of high-energy radiation that had been racing toward Earth for nearly half the present age of the universe. Lasting only about a second, it turned out to be one for the record books – the shortest gamma-ray burst (GRB) cause

scitechdaily.com

 

[watsup]

no it isn't

The earth is not now nor has it ever been a closed system.

Wrong.

 

[rahl]

Wrong.

demonstrably correct.