Evidence for abiogenesis

I've read a number of topics on abiogenesis and I know it is a scientific hypothesis, but what I lot of particular atheists seem to be purporting it as a fact. Where is the evidence supporting abiogenesis?

[Gnosital]

You're here, aren't ya?

[anthonyjfuchs]

Vinter wrote

Where is the evidence supporting abiogenesis?

Shouldn't you be asking, oh I don't know...a biochemist?

Is an anonymous internet forum really the place to go for that information?

[inkadu]

Didn't we do this three weeks ago?

Also, Vintner, so I can go to sleep with a clear conscience tonight and with no regrets: Go fuck yourself.

[calpurnpiso]

Vinter wrote

I've read a number of topics on abiogenesis and I know it is a scientific hypothesis, but what I lot of particular atheists seem to be purporting it as a fact. Where is the evidence supporting abiogenesis?

hey retard, don't you believe the imaginary friend CHRIST is REAL? and that he created everything, the BABBEL been his life intruction book?....:lol::lol::lol:Please get true SALVATION by seen a NEUROLOGIST....a brain is an AWFUL thing to WASTE. Get educated Christ-psychotic retard and please LAND. Don't let the Christ DELUSIONS bite your infected ass when you go o bed....:lol: fool in Christ...:lol:

[Kamikaze189]

Vinter wrote

I've read a number of topics on abiogenesis and I know it is a scientific hypothesis, but what I lot of particular atheists seem to be purporting it as a fact. Where is the evidence supporting abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis - or even evolution - is not our religion. We don't believe in them in the same way you believe in god. They are merely a probable explanation for what we see before us. And if one day, all the top scientists came forward and told us that abiogenesis and evolution did not and never could happen, we would not suddenly believe in god.

'Sides, this just shows that god is a euphemism for ignorance.

Kamikaze189 wrote

Abiogenesis - or even evolution - is not our religion. We don't believe in them in the same way you believe in god. They are merely a probable explanation for what we see before us. And if one day, all the top scientists came forward and told us that abiogenesis and evolution did not and never could happen, we would not suddenly believe in god.

'Sides, this just shows that god is a euphemism for ignorance.

Even saying that it is a probable explanationwhen you cannot substantiate your statements is wrong.

[inkadu]

Vinter wrote

Even saying that it is a probable explanationwhen you cannot substantiate your statements is wrong.

Do you do anal, Vinter?

inkadu wrote

Do you do anal, Vinter?

Better way to ask: Do you do anal with Xans, Vinter?

[inkadu]

HomoCyclist wrote

Better way to ask: Do you do anal with Xans, Vinter?

I'm still new to inquiring about luxury. Thanks for the tip, HC.

[Kamikaze189]

Vinter wrote

Even saying that it is a probable explanationwhen you cannot substantiate your statements is wrong.

I don't need to lay out evidence for you when you can easily find it with a google search.

[calpurnpiso]

Abiogenesis is simply a FACT. It is supported ad nauseam by thousands of observations based on EVIDENCE. One just has to CONNECT the links having a HEALTHY BRAIN to understand the connections. Christ-psychotics will NEVER understand it. Their brains are too dysfunctional to achieve this task. They are like bonono apes trying to understand a children book. This is the reason they READILY accept the Babble as a historical document based on REAL events. Science is to DIFFICULT for them to understand and requires a fine tuned BRAIN. It would be difficult to win at Le Manz driving a Model A ford.! Christians live in a world that time forgot!

[calpurnpiso]

Vinter wrote:

"Even saying that it is a probable explanation when you cannot substantiate your statements is wrong."

Try my JET so you UNDERSTAND WHY his statement is NOT wrong, but your delusions are.

Here is is. SHOW us you delusional invisible friend jesus is real and MATTERS. Put up or show us you are SANE.
JESUS EXISTENCE TEST- Drastic #1

Go to a top of a twenty story building bring a Babble start praying and quoting praying and still quoting and praying to the "Lord and Saviour" so he would assist you and save you when you Jumps from the top floor. Pray that "Saviour Jesus" make someone place matresses below, or make some truck driver carrying a load of sponge rubber park it below to soften your fall. This should be very easy for this "invisible lord and saviour friend of yours" since he has the ability to get into people's minds and could suggest life savings techniques to help the needed. He doesn't want everyone to die and go to him does he?

Well, the reality of it all is that "saviour Jesus" will NOT show up since prayers to invisible friends like him, including the other invisible friend, the holy tooth fairy, are never answered. Since he failed to show up or answer prayers you will find yourself splatered on the pavement below, your neurons liberated from the grey matter its atoms being the ONLY ones saved by the fall, they'll go their own way!. This clearly proves invisible friends are delusions, mental aberrations, produced by a neurological disorder. This delusion exists ONLY in brains that are infected by this anomaly. I define it as Christ-psychosis. Jesus is as real as the Tooth Fairy, Donald Duck or Santa Claus..and besides, not matter how much one would praise his "name" and pray to him he will be UNABLE to answer prayer regardless how specific they are for he doesn't exist.

Christ-psychosis are NO DIFFERENT than their brethren the Islam-Psychotic suicide bombers, but the latter have more FAITH and STRONGER beliefs in their invisible friend Allah, than Christians have in Jesus..:lol:

[Sternwallow]

Abiogenesis seems to be a very simple concept, "non-living matter combining somehow into living matter".

Those who do not want life to have arisen by natural means proceed to mischaracterize the scientific position on the whole issue. They claim that science uses a theory without evidence as though it were fact. They happily use a broad definition of life such that, at each specific point in the chain of argument they can say that life has not been achieved.

If we are to discuss abiogenesis, and there is no reason I can see not to, we first need to pin down exactly what we are talking about.

Abiogenesis is not evolution and it is not the advent of the first cell, it is the event (probably but not at all necessarily a singular event) when the last molecule was added under ordinary rules of chemistry, to a molecule that, until that moment was incapable of replicating and which, with that one added molecule was able to replicate.

Discussion about how to get from atoms to molecules to organic molecules to complex organic molecules is useful but irrelevant to that one, very much not magic moment of transition to replication.

Discussion about how the simplest replicating molecule could change and become more and more capable of replicating are all in the realm of evolution and not relevant to the abiogenesis event.

How complex would such a molecule have to be? John Von Neumann demonstrated that a machine, each of whose parts could take on one of 29 different states and consisting of about 20,000 parts could self-replicate. One of his students later greatly reduced both the number of states for the parts and the number of parts. Mathematically, self replication does not require the multiple millions of elements reported by some critics of abiogenesis theories.

So, what about evidence for abiogenesis? The chemical steps leading up to very complex organic molecules (without having to be specific about exactly which complex organic molecules are or might be involved) are well known and many of them are in use daily in manufacturing and pharmaceuticals. Evolution, the change in populations of self-replicating objects in response to environmental pressures, is a firmly demonstrated fact historically (fossils and other records of past life), chemically (DNA analysis) and actually observed (creation of a brand new species after 1935).

Did I gloss over the question of why a bunch of complex organic molecules would preferentially cluster into compounds that were more similar to one able to replicating while not actually being able yet to replicate? That question is not really about abiogenesis but an explanation of it might diminish resistance to accepting abiogenesis. There is insufficient time to go into this part of the origin of life question as it involves quite a bit of mathematics and computer science.

So, the abiogenesis event, having been shown to be entirely possible within a reasonable time frame (say one half to one billion years) is as reasonable a working hypothesis as that Henry made a Ford and infinitely more reasonable than magic.

[calpurnpiso]

Sternwallow wrote

Abiogenesis seems to be a very simple concept, "non-living matter combining somehow into living matter".

Those who do not want life to have arisen by natural means proceed to mischaracterize the scientific position on the whole issue. They claim that science uses a theory without evidence as though it were fact. They happily use a broad definition of life such that, at each specific point in the chain of argument they can say that life has not been achieved.

If we are to discuss abiogenesis, and there is no reason I can see not to, we first need to pin down exactly what we are talking about.

Abiogenesis is not evolution and it is not the advent of the first cell, it is the event (probably but not at all necessarily a singular event) when the last molecule was added under ordinary rules of chemistry, to a molecule that, until that moment was incapable of replicating and which, with that one added molecule was able to replicate.

Discussion about how to get from atoms to molecules to organic molecules to complex organic molecules is useful but irrelevant to that one, very much not magic moment of transition to replication.

Discussion about how the simplest replicating molecule could change and become more and more capable of replicating are all in the realm of evolution and not relevant to the abiogenesis event.

How complex would such a molecule have to be? John Von Neumann demonstrated that a machine, each of whose parts could take on one of 29 different states and consisting of about 20,000 parts could self-replicate. One of his students later greatly reduced both the number of states for the parts and the number of parts. Mathematically, self replication does not require the multiple millions of elements reported by some critics of abiogenesis theories.

So, what about evidence for abiogenesis? The chemical steps leading up to very complex organic molecules (without having to be specific about exactly which complex organic molecules are or might be involved) are well known and many of them are in use daily in manufacturing and pharmaceuticals. Evolution, the change in populations of self-replicating objects in response to environmental pressures, is a firmly demonstrated fact historically (fossils and other records of past life), chemically (DNA analysis) and actually observed (creation of a brand new species after 1935).

Did I gloss over the question of why a bunch of complex organic molecules would preferentially cluster into compounds that were more similar to one able to replicating while not actually being able yet to replicate? That question is not really about abiogenesis but an explanation of it might diminish resistance to accepting abiogenesis. There is insufficient time to go into this part of the origin of life question as it involves quite a bit of mathematics and computer science.

So, the abiogenesis event, having been shown to be entirely possible within a reasonable time frame (say one half to one billion years) is as reasonable a working hypothesis as that Henry made a Ford and infinitely more reasonable than magic.

Well said....but try to convince a schizophrenic aka Christ-psychotic of this fact? They'll continue to believe everything was zapped into existence by an invisible friend created by their malfunctioning brains!