does abiogenesis exist?

[lightgigantic]

Not at all.
We're hard at work doing just that, here is an interesting post from Wired Science:Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory. There are also several citations and "See also's" at the bottom for further research. It's only a matter of time, IMHO.

post dated rain cheques and empiricism are a poor marriage

This is a matter of semantics. From Wiki:

also from the same link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Vedanta

To me, the term generally implies a higher degree of organization than that found in unicellular organisms. Perhaps you are of the opinion that "life" equates with "consciousness", however, I do not believe that this is the common interpretation.

actually that was the opinion I was running with

I see no reason why not. Regardless of how life arose on Earth (an alternate theory to abiogenisis being galactic diaspora, for example)

saying life came from outer space simply regresses the argument

it is still subject to evolution. Even if one delves into the superstitious (God, Alien involvement, etc), we still have overwhelming evidence of evolution. I'm not sure, but I believe even the Catholic church is beginning to soften its position on the matter.

then if abiogeneis and evolution can be deemed as mutually exclusive, there is no basis for assuming that abiogenesis must have taken place at some time on the authority of evolution.

 

[Randwolf]

then if abiogeneis and evolution can be deemed as mutually exclusive, there is no basis for assuming that abiogenesis must have taken place at some time on the authority of evolution.

Hmmmm....

"...there is no basis for assuming that abiogenesis must have taken place at some time on the authority of evolution."



Isn't this the complete converse of my position? When did I state that evolution "proves" abiogenis? Quite the contrary. What I said was, specifically, that abiogenesis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolution. How you managed to pervert that into some sort of convoluted theory that evolution "proves" abiogenesis is beyond me. Are you high or something?

If this is what you were trying to prove from the beginning, which it seems to be since it is your only substantive posting I've noted - well, I could have saved you a great deal of time. I agree with you.


So what, after all that, IS your point, if you have one?

 

[lightgigantic]

Hmmmm....

"...there is no basis for assuming that abiogenesis must have taken place at some time on the authority of evolution."



Isn't this the complete converse of my position? When did I state that evolution "proves" abiogenis? Quite the contrary. What I said was, specifically, that abiogenesis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolution. How you managed to pervert that into some sort of convoluted theory that evolution "proves" abiogenesis is beyond me. Are you high or something?

If this is what you were trying to prove from the beginning, which it seems to be since it is your only substantive posting I've noted - well, I could have saved you a great deal of time. I agree with you.


So what, after all that, IS your point, if you have one?

actually it more a consequence of what sarkus was alluding to in post 13

 

[arfa brane]

Suppose instead of evolution and abiogenesis, we're talking about mathematics and "numbers".
Which came first? Do numbers require mathematics to exist, so they exist, or does mathematics require numbers?
In either case, where did they come from? Was there a "pre-mathematical" era, like a pre-biotic one?

Evolution doesn't "require" a theory of abiogenesis because it's a theory of species--species exist because they evolve.
But to explain initial conditions--the beginning of evolution--the theory must defer to a state in which there was no biological evolution, because there was no biology.

But there has always been chemistry, it's universal, so evolution "requires" a chemical theory to explain the emergence of biological systems from an initial abiological state of matter. This theory of chemistry is based on unknown conditions and processes, it's an educated guess, like guessing where "numbers" come from.

It's fairly obvious that the theory of evolution implies that the "first" life came from non-life, that there must have been pre-biotic chemistry before the first true cellular organisms emerged. Evolution is a theory of biological species, not prebiotic or abiotic "species".

 

[Randwolf]

Suppose instead of evolution and abiogenesis, we're talking about mathematics and "numbers".
Which came first? Do numbers require mathematics to exist, so they exist, or does mathematics require numbers?
In either case, where did they come from? Was there a "pre-mathematical" era, like a pre-biotic one?

Evolution doesn't "require" a theory of biogenesis because it's a theory of species--species exist because they evolve.
But to explain initial conditions--the beginning of evolution--the theory must defer to a state in which there was no biological evolution, because there was no biology.

But there has always been chemistry, it's universal, so evolution "requires" a chemical theory to explain the emergence of biological systems from an initial abiological state of matter. This theory of chemistry is based on unknown conditions and processes, it's an educated guess, like guessing where "numbers" come from.

So? What's your point as it relates to the validity of evolution?

Do you accept evolution as a viable theory backed by substantial, even overwhelming, evidence? Or do you offer an alternative?

 

[arfa brane]

So? What's your point as it relates to the validity of evolution?

Do you accept evolution as a viable theory backed by substantial, even overwhelming, evidence? Or do you offer an alternative?

The "validity" of the theory relates the valid existence of organisms to valid changes in those organisms over time.

Why do you think I'm offering "an alternative"? If the earth was once abiological, then there is a theory (somewhere) that explains how life began--an abiogenetic theory. This is strongly implied but not explained by the evolution of species.

 

[Sarkus]

when they investigated where it comes from of course

If you saw an amoeba, say, that looked like life as we currently know it, why would you conclude that it is being produced from abiogenesis and thus need to observe where it comes from? Occam's razor would suggest you wouldn't. Therefore - to reiterate - abiogeneses might well be happening but we are simply not observing it due to the life being consistent with non-abiogenesis (i.e. formed from pre-existing life) and thus not out of the ordinary for us to observe where it comes from.

pardon me?
evidence?
no longer observed?

... when did they stop observing it?

Evidence - as in there is life on this planet. This is evidence for abiogenesis as a possible cause.
As for no longer observed... a poor choice of phrase from me admittedly for this thread: have been discussing Quantum Mechanics recently and whether "observation" means only by a consciousness.

yes you did
you just claimed to know that we are never likely to know? Yes?

Ah - knowledge of that. Yes - comes from logic.

 

[Sarkus]

actually it more a consequence of what sarkus was alluding to in post 13

Your assessment of any "alluding" was incorrect.
I would also suggest you don't let any allusions you might see from one poster influence how you respond to an entirely different poster.

 

[spidergoat]

hereditary mechanism in what?

That's just it. All that was required was a primitive mechanism for heredity. I'm talking about raw exposed RNA. I think it might have started that simple.

 

[iceaura]

Therefore - to reiterate - abiogeneses might well be happening but we are simply not observing it due to the life being consistent with non-abiogenesis (i.e. formed from pre-existing life) and thus not out of the ordinary for us to observe where it comes from.

If some modern life form, similar to those we have today, appeared from inanimate matter somehow, that would be powerful evidence against Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I'm talking about raw exposed RNA. I think it might have started that simple.

Far simpler than that.