Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 5 May 2005

Note that I removed references to the idea that abiogenesis (in the modern sense) does not occur in the modern world. For all we know (well, for all I know; biologists may feel free to correct me) abiogenesis occurs constantly, and is generally unobserved because the new proto-life immediately becomes food for existing life. -- April

This still needs lots of work, but I'm increasingly unsure of my ground here. I'll leave this awhile in case a biologist may be tempted to do a better revision, and if not, come back to it after more reading-up on the topic. -- April 04:01 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using the term Aristolian instead of Aristotelian? Someone else

• Naw, if Aristotelian is the preferred term, by all means change it. -- April

Thing about Abiogenesis is, you need to define non-life before you can have life come from it. So, if you prove that nothing is non-living, you disprove abiogenesis. You also have to define life to have it come from non-life, in which case life would have to be something that really exists (not an illusion) in order for abiogenesis to have occured.

The trouble with making these definitions is, the words are still used as questions, not answers. We know some things are alive and some aren't, but we still don't know the exact difference. Living things can and do reproduce, but we have no proof that supposedly non-living things wouldn't, given the right circumstances.

There are things we can say about scientific observations of life, however. Life is apparently a state that certain combinations of matter can be in. Life is shaped into organisms, of a cellular nature. These organisms are composed of smaller mechanoids, including mechanoids for making other mechanoids. All known life is based on the RNA/DNA molecule, with supporting and resulting protiens and lipids.

If something was discovered to be analogous to life, but not based on RNA/DNA/protien, would it be called life? Our macroscopic robotics and computers come close. A nanomachine soup could come closer, perhaps. But robots and nanobots are hardly aboigenic themselves.

Merged some material with origin of life article

I think this article should this be merged with origin of life. The historical part can easily be part of that article, and the modern stuff overlaps with what is on that page right now in any case. --Lexor 19:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I have modified my position. I think it should probably be left as a separate page, since it is a slightly more general concept and has a history of its own. I have taken the liberty to move most of the "modern abiogenesis" stuff which is almost exclusively about the origin of life and merge it with the origin of life article, but have left a summary and a Main article: pointer here.

--Lexor 12:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Paragraph removed by anonymous IP address (not by me). --Lexor|Talk 10:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If abiogenesis is found impossible, this would seem to disprove both evolutionary and religious explanations of the origin of life, and would support the idea that life has always existed. The only remaining point would be whether or not life is modified by nature, as claimed by evolutionists, or not, as claimed by many religions

Proposal to Merge this page into Biopoiesis

I would like to know how you folks feel about merging abiogenesis into biopoiesis. This term carries less historical baggage and seems to be favored over abiogenesis in some situations. --Viriditas 11:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it abiogenesis where it is (it gets around 18,000 hits: abiogenesis), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with origin of life, it only gets 91 hits on Google: biopoiesis. With two sentences I can't really see it being expanded. --Lexor|Talk 11:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Google_test. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness." For some good links on the history and differences between the two words, see this link and this link. Biopoiesis has been used in place of abiogenesis by a number of researchers involved in origins related work. OTOH, abiogenesis has connotations of spontaneous generation, and it currently bears the weight of two different definitions, thus leading to ambiguity. I am therefore suggesting that abiogenesis should refer to spontaneous generation while biogenesis should be used to refer to its current definition regarding the origin of life.. IMO, I doubt that a google hit ranking will reflect this difference in any way, as most of the journals, articles, and textbooks that use these definitions are not online. When I have some more time I will try to present some further evidence for the proposed merge. In my proposal, the article for abiogenesis would still exist but it would not refer to the more modern implication of biopoiesis, just spontaneous generation. Thanks in advance for your response. --Viriditas 01:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

scientific view?

Brig Klyce proposes Cosmic ancestry which is a theory that intelligent life, through some natural mechanism, effectively began at the same time as the universe.

How is this a scientific view? It seems like a fantastic hypothesis. -- Temtem 16:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

May we need a section titled "Philosophical Critique of Abiogenesis." -- Temtem 16:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

More like "fantasies about the origins of life". Also notice that Klyce proposes an idea, not a theory. At any rate, I removed mention of both Klyce and Crick, since the paragraphs offered their opinions about origins, but didn't actually offer any criticism of the theory (as per the name of that section). — B.Bryant 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Creationist Response"

An anonymous user added a section called "Creationist Response", which I removed. I removed it for a few reasons: one, it is written in an informal, personal style; two, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox (and it is highly POV), and three, I don't believe the material belongs here. More detailed message left at anon's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Response: I re-edited it and put it back up. I did so because what is said is based on sound logic and the facts of science -- as the Links clearly indicate.

Reverted again, has no place in this article. Just because you want something to be scientific sounding doesn't make it so and this certainly is NOT science. --Deglr6328 16:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE FIRST CHECK OUT FOR YOURSELF WHAT I SAY AS IT IS BASED ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS, FACTS AND A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE.

Ohhh wow I'm convinced! not. Do you know how many others have come before you with the same nonsense? Think about it. --Deglr6328 16:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia of information, not a platform for debate. This entry defines and provides a history to the theory of abiogenisis, Creationism has its own page. Feel free to add supporting information there as appropriate, Truthteller. (You may also like to visit creation-evolution controversy) -- Knoma Tsujmai

Saying we have "NO IDEA" what lifeforms were like prior to bacteria is verifiably false for anyone interested in actually researching the subject. Furthermore using the tornado in a junkyard analogy exposes selective ignorance. To make the pieces in a junkyard analogous to molecular biology; you would have to put complimentary magnets on pieces that are compatible (to simulate the electrical properties of atoms and molecules). It then becomes much easier for pieces to combine when they randomly meet each other; and they stick together. In environments with methane for example... much larger molecules can form quite easily. What is important to understand is chance isn't the only mechanism involved. Also your name is slightly self-aggrandizing. - RoyBoy 19:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

OK RoyBoy: Show me ANY documentation where a single Homochiralic protein molecule (i.e. the type that Living things are ALL made of) has EVER been observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from being created by an already living organism, or manually put together by a team of scientists.

And After that: please provide us with some sort of half-way plausible scenario for how that first (hypothetical) Mycoplasma came together. TruthTeller

TruthTeller (interesting choice of username, incidentally), I think you are misunderstanding what Misplaced Pages is. It is not a forum to advocate your opinions. The tone in which you write would be inappropriate for any article, in Misplaced Pages or in any encyclopedia. Please read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Also, as I've asked you before, if many others disagree with an edit to an article, please respect the consensus. You may discuss it on the talk page, but it is inappropriate and ineffective to try to force the change through. Of course, each person believes he is correct; and it may be that God created the first life forms directly and that the scientific view is incorrect. However, most of the Misplaced Pages editors participating feel that this material does not belong in this article; please respect how Misplaced Pages works. Now Misplaced Pages, either articles or talk pages, are not there to discuss the merits of different scientific theories, political leaders, or economic models. This talk page is not here to convince you that the scientific model is correct or to convince me that your religious explanation is correct. However, your question deserves an answer. I am uncertain why you feel it necessary that homochiral molecules must arise before life forms do. As I understand it, homochiral proteins are simply a collection of proteins that all consist of the same enantiomer. You are correct that life forms today tend to produce homochiral molecules. However, I don't see why homochiral molecules should be a prerequisite for life. I also note that you are concerned that the Miller-Urey experiment only produced amino acids and not complex proteins. However, this is not a fair comparison. The experiment had only a week to run; indeed, recorded human history only lasts some 5,500 years, and our species has only existed for some 200,000 years. On the other hand, there was an estimated half billion years between Earth's formation and the emergence of the first life—some 26 billion times the length of the experiment and plenty of time for more complex molecules to emerge. Please note: I am not trying to change your beliefs; rather, I would like you to see why the edits you are adding do not belong. Finally, please note that as I told you before, you are violating our three-revert rule. We are a pretty tolerant community, but please respect our rules. The repeated reversion and the flagrant disregard of consensus would certainly justify a block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (I also aplogize for my edit summary which was a bit judgmental. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC))

Knowledge Seeker hit the nail on the head... I don't actually have go address your questions because its ludricrous to think abiogenesis is right or wrong based on successful things (even as simple as your examples) that we see in our everyday environment today. That doesn't hold for everyday objects we know were designed (cellphones) etc etc which are a part of our everyday existance. It stands to reason there were less efficient precursors both in public and only as prototypes which are long forgotten (can't find them as they were relatively rare and short lived in comparison to their descendants). Anyway, getting off topic.

You posed the questions and I do feel obligated to answer. For Mycoplasma; do you mean Mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome? If so my previous link explains DNA precursors. If you don't find that sufficient; then don't fret... libraries have books on molecular biology; and I'm sure there is more detailed explanations on the Internet. But that page does provide a decent overview.

A process of catalyzing for purely organic molecules homochirality occurred recently; an experiment confirming a prediction from over 50 years ago where the researcher(s) were pessimistic laboratory demonstrations of "autocatalysis" would be possible. Then here is research compiled previous to that showing how drugs are manufactured with homocirality on a regular basis. Good tact though, best I've come across in a long time... after reading one of Sarfati's books years ago a neighbor gave me I had a low opinion of the guy (playing semantics with the word theory, and saying famous scientists from centuries ago believing in creation gains credibility for it); I might have to rethink that position. Nawww, like most creationists I get the sense he does not concede being wrong; and just moves onto the next scientific unknown to cast doubt on evolution... rather than bothering to support creation.

- RoyBoy 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Knowledge Seeker", I don't know how else to tell you this but TIME And CHANCE are simply not enough. For example, let's say that the most simple self-replicating bacterium is of the order of complexity as a 1000 piece puzzle (even though the bacterium is vastly MORE complex than that). Let's further assume that you have ALL the pieces together in the same box (which neither Miller nor any of his colleagues have so far been able to do). Let's further assume that all the powers of Nature are at your disposal (i.e. wind, rain, cold, heat, fire, and the ability to shake up the box). Let's further assume that you have 100,000 Billion Years with which to put the puzzle together (using only the powers of Nature) -- meaning that you can shake up the box, heat it up, freeze it, blow on it, or even pour its contents out on the ground and pray over it. Any yet, even a third grader can tell you that TIME + NATURE Acting ALONE will NEVER put that puzzle together. This is not simply a matter of speculation, but rather of fact: a fact that NO AMOUNT of Wishfull thinking, or Doctoral Degrees, and assertions of Faith in the "power of evolution" will ever be able to change. Therefore your problem is not with me, or what I have written, but rather with the facts of science. I also don't have a problem with your editing the tone of what I have said, but rather get the strong impression that you only want ONE SIDE of the story to be heard -- the side that can never solve the problem. In fact, you Sir, have lowered my opinion of Misplaced Pages, and I am getting the impression that you are ALL a bunch of bigots -- who don't really care about the facts, but only of propagating your own (baseless) opinions.

Let's assume your analogy isn't good. Unlike a puzzle which is one individual, has one solution, and isn't "complete" (functional) without all the 1,000 pieces. Then we will assert (don't need to assume this) that biology and abiogenesis don't have your contraints. Furthermore your puzzle pieces do not behave like atoms and molecules. Yes, chance and time alone is insufficient; so either you're right or you've forgotten to include things. Doctoral degrees can help illuminate those factual gaps. - RoyBoy 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

OK then, please show me ONE example of a Homochiralic protein (like the ones that ALL living things are made out of) ever coming together by chance.

Also, your scenario also falls apart, by simple physics -- as a half-way formed pre-creature (of any sort) that cannot maintain itself (by replacing it's decaying (would-be) protein molecules, nor replicate itself will only DECAY back to it's original components. It will not sit around and maintain itself, nor make itself more complex (unless an outside intelligent force is acting upon it).

Truthteller, this is an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether abiogenesis is possible or impossible, it deserves its own entry that explains the definition and the history of the the hypothesis. The entry that you have been defacing is exactly that. Whether or not it is possible does not change the history of this postulation. Again, creationism has its own entry as does the creation-evolution controversy. Linking to this debate makes perfect sense to me, but hosting the debate on a page that defines and provides a definition to the hypothesis does not. Far from bigotry, the Misplaced Pages community strives for entries with a neutral point of view NPOV. As people have already pointed out, please remember what Misplaced Pages is Not WIN. No one is attempting to change you opinion on this matter, nor should your opinion be debated here. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that it is very difficult if not impossible to disprove a hypothesis of this nature. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until an experiment can be created that will diffinitively prove or disprove it. In the case of abiogenesis, a (comparably) short running experiement in which nothing happens does not disprove the theory, because the modern theory of abiogenesis postulates that something happened over millions of years, between trillions upon trillions of molecules. This cannot be created in a lab. It is for this reason that there are no experiements that can be executed to disprove this modern theory of abiogenesis. If it is correct it will one day be proven, if incorrect it will always remain a hypothesis. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I re-read your abiogenesis page again, and I must admit that your page is very neutral. You were right for rebuking me -- even though what I believe is based upon more than just "my opinions." I am speaking here about the more than 25 years of Personal Experiences (as in thousands of them) with the Creator Himself. Looking back now over the past few days, I have to admit that I think I was blowing off some steam at the (almost continual) bombardment (i.e. vandalization) of Western society by the Mass Media (i.e. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, Public Broadcasting, and probably over 90% of the Newspapers and Television stations in the US and Europe) -- who are always touting Evolution as if it were a Proven Fact of science (which it is emphatically not) -- like on the FRONT PAGE of today's Newspaper (with the assertion that we evolved from amoebas -- because we have similar things in common). However, is Similar DNA, etc. really "proof" of a common anscestor? Evolutionists (along with the Mass Media) are always telling us it is, but it is really? Why could it not just as well be "proof" of a Common Creator, who used something that works well over and over again -- like we do today with Rubber tires and Wheels with Steel Rims, and ball bearings -- that we (humans) use on Airplanes, Automobiles, Bicycles, Skateboards, etc. In fact, even MANY of our tools are round, as are door-knobs, ignition Keys, dials on instuments, radios and even light swiches on many lamps), but does this mean that wheels evolved by Chance? I rest my case -- and appologize again for using your web page to try to balance things out a bit. With that said, I may (in the future) be challenging you with your assertion of total neutrality. However, when I do I will try to be more diplomatic about it.

Sincerely, Randy Berg