Evidence for abiogenesis

[EN[i]GMA]

Anyone have any good evidence for abiogenesis (Ace, QDrop, I'm looking at you)?

I'm currently debating someone on ID vs. not-ID and I'm severely hampered by lack of specific knowledge in abiogenesis.

When he makes claims that it isn't possible and there is no evidence for it, I know he's wrong, but I simply don't know why.

Talkorigins is a little shallow on the subject.

Thanks.

[Funkaloyd]

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) comes first to mind. They'll counter that the experiment modeled the atmosphere wrong, but it shows that the building blocks of life could have come about naturally, and I believe there have been similar experiments which simulate different atmospheres.

I think, though, that you should focus on the ample evidence for the Theory of Evolution, and lack of evidence for ID. The ToE alone invalidates the ID hypothesis, regardless of whether life was formed on Earth through abiogenesis, came here on a comet, or was created by aliens or gods.

Where's the debate at?

[EN[i]GMA]

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) comes first to mind. They'll counter that the experiment modeled the atmosphere wrong, but it shows that the building blocks of life could have come about naturally, and I believe there have been similar experiments which simulate different atmospheres.

I think he'd dismiss the Miller-Urey experiment out of hand.

He says it's too mathamatically complex, but I think that's totally bunk.


I think, though, that you should focus on the ample evidence for the Theory of Evolution, and lack of evidence for ID. The ToE alone invalidates the ID hypothesis, regardless of whether life was formed on Earth through abiogenesis, came here on a comet, or was created by aliens or gods.

He doesn't dispute evolution, just the natural occurance of life.

He seems to be a fan of Thaxton, the leading proponent of ID who doesn't believe humans and apes have a common ancestor. Yeah.



Where's the debate at?

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=c2dedd1b3cedffa7c614396a60c674e3

[Funkaloyd]

As you said there, it's pretty much impossible to show that life was created through abiogenesis, though we can demonstrate that it's a possibility. For that reason, I don't think you'll find anything better than Miller-Urey type experiments.

But here's another option: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=12846

[Qdrop]

there truthfully is no absolute evidence for abiogenesis.....
strong theories (see The Blind Watchmaker- Richard Dawkins for one), but no observable evidence....

basically abiogenesis is the stronger of 2 theories: complex organisms evolving from random crystalized structures in clay, or the random bonding of protiens into more complex structures resembling DNA

vs.

God made it.
(what is God? don't know. what made God? don't know. How does God Work? don't know...)

[EN[i]GMA]

there truthfully is no absolute evidence for abiogenesis.....
strong theories (see The Blind Watchmaker- Richard Dawkins for one), but no observable evidence....

basically abiogenesis is the stronger of 2 theories: complex organisms evolving from random crystalized structures in clay, or the random bonding of protiens into more complex structures resembling DNA

vs.

God made it.
(what is God? don't know. what made God? don't know. How does God Work? don't know...)

That's good enough for me, but not him.

He's making the analogy of: evolution -> gravity then God -> graviton

I don't think that holds up.

[EN[i]GMA]

The only thing I can really say at this point is "I disagree".

I know he's wrong, but I don't why. It's evidently clear that he's far more knowledgeable on the subject than me.

I guess I need to read up on it more.

[racer5.0stang]

This is just out of curiosity, but can anyone name one thing in the Theory of Evolution that has been proven true?

I don't know the ends and outs of the subject as some people do.

[Ace42X]

This is just out of curiosity, but can anyone name one thing in the Theory of Evolution that has been proven true?

Natural selection, genetic inheritance, genetic mutation, gradual development, need I go on?

[catatonic]

Once I wanted tosee and possibly understand what Cal Tech was teaching. There was a book called Microbial Life by Jerome J. Perry, James T. Staley, and Stephen Lory. Sinauer. By reading it, the first few pages at amazon.com for free, I gained certainty that the scientists had an intentional grasp of what they were talking about with abiogenesis, and you can read about the experiment therein. But it's still kind of basic. Alas, I didn't get my want.

May I suggest both theories and blending in with who you're with, as long as you feel certain.

IN THE BEGINNING isn't how the Bible should really start anyway. You can check out Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse.

Science used to think the Sun developed on it's own, but now think it started in the midst of other stars/suns. Science used to think the Sun was hydrogen, now Iron. And I haven't kept up with science for the last few years. Keep in mind that science gets more sophisticated. With scriptures, as you keep reading them you can make them come true. It's hard since they aren't a science textbook.

[EN[i]GMA]

I get the feeling I need to read a few books on the subject.

EDIT: But I won't be reading THAT book, as it's 112 dollars.

[catatonic]

You can get the part on abiogenesis sampled for free at amazon.com. Simply preview, you know.

"The 'intelligence' of intelligent design is intended to be confabulated with 'information'. This is what leads to the necessity -- consistent with this theory -- of an embodiment of a multi-talented (compound) god. Intelligence is the result of the use of information, but it's not the same thing as information. Information is the fuel of intelligence. It's not the engine, it's not the car, and it doesn't tell the car when and where to go and stop [...]" - Stan Tenen

I think if we take this highly unvalued statement and try to interpret it, it's saying intelligent design requires information in the decision making process of producing living organisms and that information would be different at different points so the ID proponents are calling for a less than perfect creator, leading to fractures in Universe.

You can google the article to find it or click on www.meru.org/coast but if you want to be overwhelmed with religious stuff. "Mooooooooo."

[catatonic]

But I think there is a way through this that won't make a cow out of creation. The force, if you will, could run through all the compartments of information as though they weren't the force.

[catatonic]

And some work from men with scientific credentials you may or may not find helpful:

http://www.meru.org/coast/ID-ArticleExcerpts.html

[ASsman]

Hmm, the only subject I enjoy beating into the ground. I learn something new everytime.