Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[exchemist]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/figure/RSOB120190f1/

So? This scheme looks like the Monty Python theory that dinosaurs are thin at one end, thicker in the middle and then thin again at the other end - apart from the mystery DKS.

If you can explain what that is, that might add some value to your post.

 

[paddoboy]

It is not an answer. It is a statement of the issue. All "abiogenesis" means is "the natural process by which life arose from non-life". We do not know, at all, how this happened yet, never mind exactly. There is no theory of abiogenesis. All we have is a collection of hypotheses, for various bits of the process.

It is true the term abiogenesis presumes a natural process, as opposed to some sort of deus ex machina intervention. But this is simply because it is a scientific term and science - by definition- operates on the basis of seeking natural explanations.

So all you are doing by banging the table about "abiogenesis" is asserting that a natural explanation is what we should all be looking for. And bears crap in the woods.

You can word it anyway you like my friend, the facts are that at one time there was no life, not even molecules and/or atoms, and then there was.....we call that Abiogenesis, or the theory of Abiogenesis......and it is the only scientific theory re origin of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

Sorry about your table and the bear in the woods.

 

[Michael 345]

"At one time there was no life, no molecules, no atoms, , then there was!!! or Abiogenesis !

OR to paraphrase above

"At one time there was no god, no molecules, no atoms, then there was, or godgenesis"

Then god did all the rest of everything

Is that not a lot more sensible?

 

[paddoboy]

OR to paraphrase above

"At one time there was no god, no molecules, no atoms, then there was, or godgenesis"

Then god did all the rest of everything

Is that not a lot more sensible?

This is why the undoubted process of abiogenesis having taken place, upsets those so inclined and tends to get them out of the closet, so to speak.

 

[paddoboy]

"Abiogenesis" is just the term for that process, whatever it was, which we still do not understand.

Never the less, still the only scientific theory that is viable to explain the emergence of life from non life, no matter how much pedant or irreverent interpretation you chose to put on it.
It is the only scientific theory for the origin of life.
We are confident re the existence and theory of DM without knowing what it is and its exact nature. DE can also fit that same scenario...a well accepted theory based on observational data, and yet its true nature is unknown.

Perhaps you need to examine your apparent fence sitting and agenda along with your rather silly remarks re banging tables and bears shitting in the woods.

 

[Q-reeus]

So? This scheme looks like the Monty Python theory that dinosaurs are thin at one end, thicker in the middle and then thin again at the other end - apart from the mystery DKS.

If you can explain what that is, that might add some value to your post.

Laughed all the way through a rerun of that episode not long ago. MPFC - best humor ever imo.

 

[exchemist]

Never the less, still the only scientific theory that is viable to explain the emergence of life from non life, no matter how much pedant or irreverent interpretation you chose to put on it.
It is the only scientific theory for the origin of life.
We are confident re the existence and theory of DM without knowing what it is and its exact nature. DE can also fit that same scenario...a well accepted theory based on observational data, and yet its true nature is unknown.

Perhaps you need to examine your apparent fence sitting and agenda along with your rather silly remarks re banging tables and bears shitting in the woods.

I say again, abiogenesis is not the name of a "theory". It is merely a label for the natural process, whatever it was, by which life arose from non-life.

We do not have a theory for this process, yet. If you ask anyone working in the field how replicating organisms arose for the first time, the answer will be: "We do not yet know, but we have some ideas". All we have are bits of the jigsaw and competing hypotheses that are still largely speculative and by no means any sort of consensus : RNA world, metabolism first vs. replication first, ideas about the first membranes, and so on. There is no consensus yet on whether life first rose in the deep oceans at hot vents, or in volcanic springs on dry land, or in swamps that were alternately wet and dry, let alone what steps occurred in what order.

I am, of course, not fence-sitting in the least. I am simply enough of a chemist not be fazed by admitting the limits of current knowledge. Science does not have to have instant theories for everything and this is one of the most intractable arenas in the whole of science, as it took place so long ago and left so few traces, other than the biochemistry of present-day life itself. I find the developments in the last few years very interesting and it is clear that a lot of progress is being made. But abiogenesis is a puzzle that I do not expect to see solved in my lifetime. I think it may take another century.

There is a layman's summary of some of the competing chemical hypotheses here, from the Royal Society of Chemistry: https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-origin-of-life/2000129.article

Now, perhaps you can add something of value to our understanding, by explaining what DKS is, in the flowscheme that you posted. Because without that, it seems a fairly content-free post.

 

[paddoboy]

I say again, abiogenesis is not the name of a "theory". It is merely a label for the natural process, whatever it was, by which life arose from non-life.

I didn't say it was a theory, I said it was a scientific theory, and that remains so despite your continued attempts to somehow throw doubt on that, along with being the only viable scientific "process" or "theory" to explain the emergence of life.

We do not have a theory for this process, yet. If you ask anyone working in the field how replicating organisms arose for the first time, the answer will be: "We do not yet know, but we have some ideas". All we have are bits of the jigsaw and competing hypotheses that are still largely speculative and by no means any sort of consensus : RNA world, metabolism first vs. replication first, ideas about the first membranes, and so on. There is no consensus yet on whether life first rose in the deep oceans at hot vents, or in volcanic springs on dry land, or in swamps that were alternately wet and dry, let alone what steps occurred in what order.

I have not, nor ever denied that and mentioned it now more then once. So one would wonder why you are repeating it. Again, just because we do not have a consensus on the exact pathway, does not subtract from the obvious situation, that the theory of Abiogenesis [or if you like, the process of Abiogenesis ] is/are the only scientific answer to the emergence of life. DM and DE are similar examples.

I am, of course, not fence-sitting in the least. I am simply enough of a chemist not be fazed by admitting the limits of current knowledge. Science does not have to have instant theories for everything and this is one of the most intractable arenas in the whole of science, as it took place so long ago and left so few traces, other than the biochemistry of present-day life itself. I find the developments in the last few years very interesting and it is clear that a lot of progress is being made. But abiogenesis is a puzzle that I do not expect to see solved in my lifetime. I think it may take another century.

My comment re you fence sitting was in relation to claiming that Abiogenesis is not a theory in your first post. I'll gladly withdraw it, despite you claiming it is not a theory just a process. Otherwise we are in agreement.

There is a layman's summary of some of the competing chemical hypotheses here, from the Royal Society of Chemistry: https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-origin-of-life/2000129.article

Thank you, I will surely read it over the next few hours, but I also have posted a similar of some of the competing hypothesis, for Abiogenesis.

Now, perhaps you can add something of value to our understanding, by explaining what DKS is, in the flowscheme that you posted. Because without that, it seems a fairly content-free post.

Actually a good question. Answer, as yet I do not know. I posted that just to illustrate the path from non living to life to evolution, and highlighting how abiogenesis and evolution go hand in hand so to speak. I actually thought you as an exchemist maybe able to throw light on that.

 

[paddoboy]

Now, perhaps you can add something of value to our understanding, by explaining what DKS is, in the flowscheme that you posted. Because without that, it seems a fairly content-free post.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._what_we_can_know_and_what_we_will_never_know

DKS: Dynamic Kinetic Stability
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._what_we_can_know_and_what_we_will_never_know

 

[Yazata]

My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe.

At risk of echoing Exchemist's excellent posts, I'll agree with him that it isn't a scientific answer. Nor is it even scientific, per se. As far as we know, the original origin events haven't left much in the way of observable traces, apart from what we hypothesize was the product. The abiogenesis hypothesis, and certainly your argument for it, is based largely on an adherence to methodological naturalism and our inability to think of any other alternative that satisfies that naturalistic constraint. That's entirely armchair theorizing and probably better characterized as philosophy than science. And as Exchemist says, all that the 'abiogenesis' idea provides us with are questions, not answers.

Since 'abiogenesis' isn't really an answer at all, the word 'abiogenesis' should perhaps be better thought of as characterizing a hypothesis and a research program to explore it.

 

[exchemist]

At risk of echoing Exchemist's excellent posts, I'll agree with him that it isn't a scientific answer. Nor is it even scientific, per se. As far as we know, the original origin events haven't left much in the way of observable traces, apart from what we hypothesize was the product. The abiogenesis hypothesis, and certainly your argument for it, is based largely on an adherence to methodological naturalism and our inability to think of any other alternative that satisfies that naturalistic constraint. That's entirely armchair theorizing and probably better characterized as philosophy than science. And as Exchemist says, all that the 'abiogenesis' idea provides us with are questions, not answers.

Since 'abiogenesis' isn't really an answer at all, the word 'abiogenesis' should perhaps be better thought of as characterizing a hypothesis and a research program to explore it.

Thank you, that's my point in a nutshell.

 

[globali]

So yes, Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

The title is wrong because biology means life. Its like saying: chemistry plus life=abiogenesis.

Anyways, my understanding is that abiogenesis is the scientific discipline that tries to figure out how chemistry became biology.

 

[globali]

Creationists claim that the field of abiogenesis is like alchemy once used to be. You cannot convert metals to gold. And because you can't, god made gold (and life).

 

[paddoboy]

At risk of echoing Exchemist's excellent posts, I'll agree with him that it isn't a scientific answer. Nor is it even scientific, per se. As far as we know, the original origin events haven't left much in the way of observable traces, apart from what we hypothesize was the product. The abiogenesis hypothesis, and certainly your argument for it, is based largely on an adherence to methodological naturalism and our inability to think of any other alternative that satisfies that naturalistic constraint. That's entirely armchair theorizing and probably better characterized as philosophy than science. And as Exchemist says, all that the 'abiogenesis' idea provides us with are questions, not answers.

Since 'abiogenesis' isn't really an answer at all, the word 'abiogenesis' should perhaps be better thought of as characterizing a hypothesis and a research program to explore it.

Thank you, that's my point in a nutshell.

Philosophical nonsense in actual fact...Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.
Really Yazata, you have some river like incredulous statements in your post, starting with of course the nonsensical statement that "it isn't a scientific answer. Nor is it even scientific, per se." Let's decide right now, that magical spaghetti monsters in the sky are not scientific answers. If that is what you are alluding to.
Now getting back to the nitty gritty and the point both of you have ignored or somehow misrepresented, at one time the universe was devoid of life...in fact it was devoid of elements and even devoid of atomic nucleus. Then there was life!!!!
And many illustrations and experiments have shown the logic and simplicity of chemical reactions of different persuasions, show that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.
The following again says it much better then I....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

Just because we are ignorant of the exact process, does not detract from that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer...We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of unseen matter. We call it DM because we do not know the nature of it as yet....We have plenty of evidence to show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and the cause of that is what we have labeled DE, because as yet we do not know the nature of it.

Science does not give a hoot that such a process sounds shockingly sacrilegious to the mythical beliefs of some...Science does not give a hoot that mythical and unsupported supernatural and/or paranormal supposed answers are not considered, simply because science does not entertain such unsupported beliefs that are figments of people's imagination and cannot be falsified.
Now Yazata, please show me or entertain me with another "scientific"answer to how life came to be. And please tell me whether the crux of this thread is erroneous...that is the point, that at one time there was no life, then there was. Or alternatively, please show me a reputable scientific paper from a reputable publishing company, by a reputable scientist, that will argue that Abiogenesis is not the only scientific answer for the existence of life.
That my friend is a fait accompli no matter how it offends people's sensibilities.
Those questions of course also apply to anyone who doubts the theory/process/model of Abiogenesis, or life from non life.

 

[paddoboy]

The title is wrong because biology means life. Its like saying: chemistry plus life=abiogenesis.

I see it as saying that chemical reactions started taking place which lead to the most fundamental life forms, which biologically started to evolve...but hey, I'm willing to be corrected on that score.

Anyways, my understanding is that abiogenesis is the scientific discipline that tries to figure out how chemistry became biology.

Or how non life became life.

 

[paddoboy]

At the risk of being accused of flooding the thread with evidence and/or opinions supporting Abiogenesis, here are a couple of "scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth" .
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html

http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/miller_prebiotic souppdf.pdf

A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions:
Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/430106

A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study on the Formation of the Amino Acid Glycine (NH2CH2COOH) and Its Isomer (CH3NHCOOH) in Extraterrestrial Ices

Abstract
We have investigated the synthesis of the simplest amino acid, glycine, by Galactic cosmic-ray particles in extraterrestrial ices. Laboratory experiments combined with electronic structure calculations showed that a methylamine molecule [CH3NH2(X 1A')] can be dissociated through interaction with energetic electrons in the track of a cosmic-ray particle to form atomic hydrogen and the radicals CH2NH2(X 2A') and CH3NH(X 2A'). Hydrogen atoms with sufficient kinetic energy could overcome the entrance barrier to add to a carbon dioxide molecule [CO2(X 1Σ

)], yielding a trans-hydroxycarbonyl radical, HOCO(X 2A'). Neighboring radicals with the correct geometric orientation then recombine to form glycine, NH2CH2COOH(X 1A), and also its isomer, CH3NHCOOH(X1A). These findings expose for the first time detailed reaction mechanisms of how the simplest amino acid glycine and its isomer can be synthesized via nonequilibrium chemistry in interstellar and cometary ices. Our results offer an important alternative to aqueous and photon-induced formation of amino acids in comets and in molecular clouds. These results also predict the existence of a hitherto undetected isomer of glycine in the interstellar medium, suggest that glycine should be observable on Saturn's moon Titan, and help to account for the synthesis of more complex amino acids in the Murchison and Orgueil meteorites.

 

[exchemist]

Philosophical nonsense in actual fact...Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.
Now getting back to the nitty gritty and the point both of you have ignored or somehow misrepresented, at one time the universe was devoid of life...in fact it was devoid of elements and even devoid of atomic nucleus. Then there was life!!!!
And many illustrations and experiments have shown the logic and simplicity of chemical reactions of different persuasions, show that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.
The following again says it much better then I....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

Just because we are ignorant of the exact process, does not detract from that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer...We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of unseen matter. We call it DM because we do not know the nature of it as yet....We have plenty of evidence to show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and the cause of that is what we have labeled DE, because as yet we do not know the nature of it.

Science does not give a hoot that such a process sounds shockingly sacrilegious to the mythical beliefs of some...Science does not give a hoot that mythical and unsupported supernatural and/or paranormal supposed answers are not considered, simply because science does not entertain such unsupported beliefs that are figments of people's imagination and cannot be falsified.
Now Yazata, please show me or entertain me with another "scientific"answer to how life came to be. And please tell me whether the crux of this thread is erroneous...that is the point, that at one time there was no life, then there was. Or alternatively, please show me a reputable scientific paper from a reputable publishing company, by a reputable scientist, that will argue that Abiogenesis is not the only scientific answer for the existence of life.
That my friend is a fait accompli no matter how it offends people's sensibilities.
Those questions of course also apply to anyone who doubts the theory/process/model of Abiogenesis, or life from non life.

Well of course abiogenesis is the only scientific approach. But that's just because looking for natural explanations is what science does.

Equally obviously - and it is a depressing testament to your stubborn lack of understanding that I, a trained chemist, feel the need even to say this, but I am sick of your silly, coat-trailing insinuations - a natural explanation is the only kind of explanation any of us with faith in science will have time for.

However, on its own, abiogenesis is no kind of "answer" to anything, any more than you could answer the question of why water freezes by saying "it's due to a natural process".

Assuming that physical phenomena have natural explanations is the basic philosophical start point for all science. This is called methodological naturalism: more here, from a source you should find impeccable:https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
and is how science shook itself free from theology at the Renaissance. By speaking of abiogenesis, all you do is confirm that methodological naturalism i.e. the scientific method is going to be followed in your research.

It is not a research finding.

 

[paddoboy]

Oh hang the accusations!
https://www.academia.edu/26753585/F..._of_dissipating_the_prevailing_solar_spectrum

Fundamental molecules of life are pigments which arose and co-evolved as a response to the thermodynamic imperative of dissipating the prevailing solar spectrum:

Abstract.
The driving force behind the origin and evolution of life has been the thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the biosphere through increasing the global solar photon dissipation rate. In the upper atmosphere of today, oxygen and ozone derived from life processes are performing the short-wavelength UV-C and UV-B dissipation. On Earth’s surface, water and organic pigments in water facilitate the near-UV and visible photon dissipation.The first organic pigments probably formed, absorbed, and dissipated at those photo chemically active wavelengths in the UV-C and UV-B that could have reached Earth’s surface during the Archean. Proliferation of these pigments can be understood as an autocatalytic photo chemical process obeying non-equilibrium thermodynamic directives related to in-creasing solar photon dissipation rate.Under these directives,organic pigments would have evolved over time to increase the global photon dissipation rate by (1) increasing the ratio of their effective photon cross sections to their physical size, (2) decreasing their electronic excited state lifetimes,(3) quenching radiative de-excitation channels (e.g., fluores-cence), (4) covering ever more completely the prevailing solar spectrum, and (5) proliferating and dispersing to cover an ever greater surface area of Earth. From knowledge of the evolution of the spectrum of G-type stars, and considering the most probable history of the transparency of Earth’s atmosphere, we construct the most probable Earth surface solar spectrum as a function of time and compare this with the history of molecular absorption maxima obtained from the available data in the literature. This comparison supports the conjecture that many fundamental molecules of life are pigments which arose, proliferated, and co-evolved as a response to dissipating the solar spectrum, supports the thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life, con-strains models for Earth’s early atmosphere, and sheds some new light on the origin of photosynthesis

 

[exchemist]

Oh hang the accusations!
https://www.academia.edu/26753585/F..._of_dissipating_the_prevailing_solar_spectrum

Fundamental molecules of life are pigments which arose and co-evolved as a response to the thermodynamic imperative of dissipating the prevailing solar spectrum:

Abstract.
The driving force behind the origin and evolution of life has been the thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the biosphere through increasing the global solar photon dissipation rate. In the upper atmosphere of today, oxygen and ozone derived from life processes are performing the short-wavelength UV-C and UV-B dissipation. On Earth’s surface, water and organic pigments in water facilitate the near-UV and visible photon dissipation.The first organic pigments probably formed, absorbed, and dissipated at those photo chemically active wavelengths in the UV-C and UV-B that could have reached Earth’s surface during the Archean. Proliferation of these pigments can be understood as an autocatalytic photo chemical process obeying non-equilibrium thermodynamic directives related to in-creasing solar photon dissipation rate.Under these directives,organic pigments would have evolved over time to increase the global photon dissipation rate by (1) increasing the ratio of their effective photon cross sections to their physical size, (2) decreasing their electronic excited state lifetimes,(3) quenching radiative de-excitation channels (e.g., fluores-cence), (4) covering ever more completely the prevailing solar spectrum, and (5) proliferating and dispersing to cover an ever greater surface area of Earth. From knowledge of the evolution of the spectrum of G-type stars, and considering the most probable history of the transparency of Earth’s atmosphere, we construct the most probable Earth surface solar spectrum as a function of time and compare this with the history of molecular absorption maxima obtained from the available data in the literature. This comparison supports the conjecture that many fundamental molecules of life are pigments which arose, proliferated, and co-evolved as a response to dissipating the solar spectrum, supports the thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life, con-strains models for Earth’s early atmosphere, and sheds some new light on the origin of photosynthesis

Yes this seems to adopt Jeremy England's idea: "the thermodynamic imperative of increasing entropy production". They describe this as a "conjecture".

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_England

 

[paddoboy]

Well of course abiogenesis is the only scientific approach. But that's just because looking for natural explanations is what science does.

Yazata denied it as a scientific approach and you agreed with him...well at least "liked" the error. Yep, that's what science does, under the auspices of the scientific methodology.

Equally obviously - and it is a depressing testament to your stubborn lack of understanding that I, a trained chemist, feel the need even to say this, but I am sick of your silly, coat-trailing insinuations - a natural explanation is the only kind of explanation any of us with faith in science will have time for.

Take a disprin and have a good lie down. I know enough my dear friend to understand with limited research, that Abiogenesis is not only a scientific answer, it is the only scientific answer.

However, on its own, abiogenesis is no kind of "answer" to anything, any more than you could answer the question of why water freezes by saying "it's due to a natural process".

Nonsense and shame!

[only 7 minutes long, you'll do well to watch it]

Assuming that physical phenomena have natural explanations is the basic philosophical start point for all science. This is called methodological naturalism: more here, from a source you should find impeccable:https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
and is how science shook itself free from theology at the Renaissance. By speaking of abiogenesis, all you do is confirm that methodological naturalism i.e. the scientific method is going to be followed in your research.

It is not a research finding.

Philosophy is the basis of science and I'll never argue against that. But as now some scientists are saying, it sometimes is taken too far and may even have had its day. Like i said, science is what we know, philosophy is what we don't know.
Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to the emergence of life, no matter how much you try and get around that fact for whatever reasons.