abiogenesis
Posted on: May 10, 2007 - 8:02pm
Offline
abiogenesis
hi, One question I have. If atheism is true, then life came from non-life. How is this possible?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
Well, I must let you know, "Atheism" is a lack of belief in god. This lack of belief says nothing of life coming from non-life. Abiogenisis is being studied by some of the worlds best bio-chemists, but because we do not have an answer yet does not mean "god" automatically becomes the correct answer.
Even if atheism weren't true, life would still have to come from non-life. The nature of the information continuum forces abiogenesis upon us. If God snapped his fingers and created the proto cells which started evolution ex nihilo, that is still life from non life.
Now let me ask you a question. Can you defined life, for me? Think carefully about this. If you cannot give a coherent definition, you admit that life is a continuum between atoms and molecuels, polymers, and cells. If life is a continuum (which all science indicates it is) then your argument will collapse.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's amazing how people can just change the topic WITHIN the sentence.
I like the 'lottery' approach best of all. Let's pretend we're playing the cosmic POWERBALL drawing. We need five numbers/things to match with our powerball pick of LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.
My first pick: Oxygen
Mysecond pick: Carbon
My third pick: Hydrogen
My fourth pick: Small traces of other elements like Nitrogen, Calcium, Phosphorous, Potassium, Sulfur, Sodium, Magnesium, Copper, Zinc, Chlorine, Iodine, Cobalt, Iron. Basically, just a small amount of the rest of the periodic table.
My fifth pick: Energy in many forms. Heat, light, electricity, quantum nuclear bonding, and gravity. etc.
Remember, my powerball is: LIFE AS WE KNOW IT
Now, let's say that I get to play a ticket with these picks every time I find a planet in the 'goldilocks' zone around a star somewhere.
How many chances do I have to get all five numbers/things?
How many chances do I have to get the POWERBALL also?
If my odds are one in a billion of getting this combination and I have trillions of chances in the universe then I have the probability that somewhere LIFE AS WE KNOW IT will hit the jackpot.
How is this concept reasonable? There are lottery winners all the time.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I think that will be quite enough.
Chan is asking a question that should be asked and answered by everyone. I'm willing to bet that it has been asked of them already many times.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I like the 'lottery' approach best of all. Let's pretend we're playing the cosmic POWERBALL drawing. We need five numbers/things to match with our powerball pick of LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.
I wouldn't compare life to the lottary. Quite simply, the odds are against us if it luck. But abiogenesis is not luck. Protein selection and amino acid synthesis is natural selection. All that is needed is a star. The rest is the same side of one coin.
My first pick: Oxygen
Mysecond pick: Carbon
My third pick: Hydrogen
No way man. My first pick is water. The permanent dipole necessary for the H-bonds and VDW forces to guide the formation of supramolecular structures. My next pick is Carbon. Not Oxygen. Carbon is by far the best polymerizing element in the table. Silicon is a shitty second. And biology is all about
Second pick: Oxygen
Third: Not Hydrogen. Hydrogen is totally ubiquitous. Everywhere. No matter where you go in teh universere, there is no shortage of Hydrogen. You don't need to play the lottery for this. Where there is existence, there is hydrogen.
So my next pick is Nitrogen: We don't need "trace amounts". We need loads of this stuff. Nitrogen is the key building block for purines, pyrimidines, amino acids, proteins,
My fourth pick: Small traces of other elements like Nitrogen, Calcium, Phosphorous, Potassium, Sulfur, Sodium, Magnesium, Copper, Zinc, Chlorine, Iodine, Cobalt, Iron. Basically, just a small amount of the rest of the periodic table.
Those are merely two sides of the same coin. Because life can only form on terrestrial planets, and terrestrial planets are composed from the remnants of supernovae pulled together by a new star. The heat of the supernovae can generate all the heavy elements via nucleosynthesis above Iron. If there is a terrestrial planet, these elements will exist on it, beacuse this is what builds it. All we need is the planet, with the right conditions.
My fifth pick: Energy in many forms. Heat, light, electricity, quantum nuclear bonding, and gravity. etc.
Third side of the same coin. Planets can only form under the gravity of stars, which generated EM radiation energy, and also generate nucleosynthesis or "nuclear bonding" and gravity and heat.
Remember, my powerball is: LIFE AS WE KNOW IT
All the things you mentioned are merely the same sides of one coin: A yellow dwarf star.
If my odds are one in a billion of getting this combination and I have trillions of chances in the universe then I have the probability that somewhere LIFE AS WE KNOW IT will hit the jackpot.
It's gotta be more than that. Galaxies are noted for uniformity. Equations suggest that every Yellow Dwarf Star system has 1-2 planets that fall in the "zone". Do the math. 100 billion galaxies, and 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets orbiting 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
I like those odds.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yes, it's nice to ask question, but when it's "Atheism, therfore something else"
It's silly. It's like those people who ask "You can't get something from nothing so where did the universe comes from?" and yet they never say what their god made the universe from.
To quote a song:
"Tell me I'm wrong, then you better prove your right."
Ophios,
I know. I just don't want to turn them off from reading.
deludedgod,
Sure. I was trying to keep it simple. Umm 2(H2) + 2(O2) = 2(H2O) + Energy from the exothermic reaction of combination forms water. So claiming water as a single building block seems superfluous to me.
We can play both of our tickets, there are enough planets around stars.
Is a yellow sun necessary? I was under the impression that there was a goldilocks zone around every main sequence star.
chan, are you still reading?
[Edit]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Atheism does not equal abiogenesis the same way theism does not equal cupcakes. Get the drift? Now, to explain abiogenesis one only has to look at an infinite number of possibilites in an infinite universe... perchance out of infinity, one planet (or more) may be suitable for the right combination of elements to work together. To form amino acids and nucleic acids, chemistry takes over after that. Once selective pressures are presented it is very easy to move forward after that. But the thing we have to keep in mind is the timespan. The first organic molecules propably started out as polymers, perhaps multiplying or binding to other organic molecules..etc..etc..etc... until finally organized systems came to be and once the engine starts running it's not going to stop...apply selective pressures and voila we have an aardvark (billions of years later of course)
There are a few theories, one that even says that life started elsewhere in the universe and was brought here through a meteor etc.. (panspermia).
Fact of the matter is this: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."-- Charles Darwin
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Because the difference between life and non-life is not as black-and-white as you think it is. In actualityt here is a gradation from life to non-life, or vice versa. We can see this in entities that we can't tell if they should count as alive or not, such as viruses and prions.
Chan, Christians believe that man came from non-life as well. Check Genesis.
As for abiogenesis, no-one knows how it worked yet. There is encouraging research by the likes of Professor Deamer going on in this field but it has yet to yield results. However, Miller-Urey and other experiments have demonstrated that it's theoretically possible so I guess it's just a matter of time.
That's what science is: a gritty, painstaking, time consuming, frustrating search for the truth. It's hard work but so, so much more rewarding than simple inventing a story to fill in the gaps.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
BGH wrote:Abiogenisis is being studied by some of the worlds best bio-chemists, but because we do not have an answer yet does not mean "god" automatically becomes the correct answer.
Fair enough, but let me make some observations about this remark. First, this is a tacit admission that scicene has NO evidence of how abiogenesis is even possible. Second, I agree with you that Creation is not the default position based on what we don't know, rather it is based on what we do know. Design implies a designer. Finally, what really matters is the evidence at hand, not what might be produced in the future (no science of the gaps). When and if new facts come to light, then we're free to reassess. The most useful conclusions are based on present facts, not future fantasies. Since, there is NO evidence to support abiogenesis and that no one has ever observed life coming about by random processes from non-life, then it is reasonable to conclude that abiogenesis is ridiculous. Am I wrong?
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
Patrician, those that believe that abiogenesis is even possible invent a story. They say, "We don't know how it's possible but science will figure it out one day." Science is based on present facts, not future fantasies. Abiogenesis is an invented story to fill in the holes of science.
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
LEFT OF LARRY Wrote:Now, to explain abiogenesis one only has to look at an infinite number of possibilites in an infinite universe... perchance out of infinity, one planet (or more) may be suitable for the right combination of elements to work together. To form amino acids...
Larry, that is a great story you just told. How does one look at an infinite number of possibilities in an infinite universe? It can't be done. Telling a story and giving evidences for that story are two different things. No one has ever observed life coming from non-life by natural, random processes.
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
The key word is 'yet'. Hypothetically it's possible but we haven't managed it yet. Powered flight was theorised as possible for hundreds of years with groundwork experiments laid down however it wasn't achieved until the early 20th century.
I admit there currently isn't any tacit evidence of abiogenesis. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop looking.
But since nothing is actually designed - I mean, seriously, who would do a botched quadraped to biped job like the human body if it were designed? - that implication holds no water.
Quite, quite wrong. That's like saying you should blow all your savings on hookers and drugs because tomorrow might not come. You have to plan ahead.
No, the most useful discussions are based on theoretical possibilities with high probabilities of succseful conclusion. Just because we don't yet have physical proof of abiogenesis - although we have theories that have produced elementary components - does not make Creationism or ID any more valid.
Yes, for the reasons outlined above.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
But you do realize that abiogenesis is currently a bunch of different hypothesis?
In other words, with science, we can figure out how this happened.
As we get information of the extremely primative earth, we should get a pretty good idea what happened, with the help of science.
Or are you suggesting we shouldn't speculate, and just accept what ever someone says, as they have the information then and there?
There is nothing that implies a designer but much that implies otherwise. The human body for example is a car wreck. We eat and breathe through the same hole, many people each year choke to death because of this. We are not well suited for exposure to elements, i.e. no thick body hair to keep us warm. Our sewage sytem is intermingled with our pleasure center.... the list really goes on and on. And that is just humans.
From my point of view, yes, you are wrong.
I am not giving an answer, nor imploring "science of the gaps", I merely stating we do not have an answer. It is not logical to make one up, "god(designer)", and plug it into the equation"
Which is exactly what you have done with your "god(designer)".
{Edit for clarity}
Have you done any research into current abiogenesis hypothesis?
If creation were true, everything would be designed and thus we would not be able to make any distinction between designed and non-designed things. Therefor, it would be impossible for us to tell if something was designed or not.
Meet your own criteria. Put forward your hypothesis of how a 'god creates life from non-life. Until you can, you offer nothing by claiming your god did it. At least with abiogenesis hypothesis there are mechanism that can be pointed to as possible ways that life might arise from non-life even though they are yet to be proven. Since you don't even have, nor will you ever, an explanation of how your god could do this, abiogenesis is far better substantiated than your scenario.
Yes you are wrong as explained above. However, even if present hypothesis for abiogenesis turned out to be way off base, your non-explanation is pointless as it tells us nothing ofthe mechanisms by which life comes from non-life.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
*Sigh*
Yeah, I know.
Atheist Books
So I'm curious as to what this god made life from.
If they ever figure out abiogenesis, then that, with 'magic man done it!' tacked on at the end.
Oh, and the term 'science of the gaps' I find odd. It's my understanding that science thrives on the gaps and moves toward each gap, trying its best to fill every gap and understand more of the universe. The god approach to filling gaps is to put a deity gloss over it, like covering a hole with a sheet and throwing leaves over it instead of filling it with soil. The gap looks full, but not really, there is nothing supporting underneath the surface, no ground to stand on. No problem has been solved, in a metaphorical sense you would just blindly fall into the hole because you see it as being solid ground. God of the gaps is dangerous in that way because it sees things as explained when they are not, sees problems solved because it just looks like it, there is no benefit or meaning behind deity plugging and it diverts attention from important and meaningful understanding.-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.
BGH wrote:There is nothing that implies a designer but much that implies otherwise. The human body for example is a car wreck....
BGH, you must be one of those the-glass-is-half-empty-type people. The human body is an amazing machine. The human brain capabilities that humans cannot fathom. Such as reason, emotion, communication. Our brain has allowed us to build things and invent things to prolong life, to engineer vaccines to fight diseases etc. Our body has the ability to fight off certain diseases and the list goes on and on.
One question for you BGH. If our body is a car wreck as you say, then that would imply your brain is a car wreck since it is part of the body which means your logic is a car wreck. How do you know that you are using logic correctly to make arguments against the existence of a God?
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
Ophios wrote:So I'm curious as to what this god made life from.
Ophios, I believe that God created the world out of nothing (Creation ex nihlo) as the Bible says. If he is God, this would be no problem for him.
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
No actually I am a glass full or half full guy, half empty is no good. If it is any less than half full I ask the bartender to top it off.
I agree there are aspects of the human body that are amazing, none of which infer a designer. But there are also parts of the human body a first year mechanical engineering student could design much better. Either your designer sucks in some areas of engineering or he doesn't care.
Like I said above, the brain is amazing. There are many parts that are amazing, but nothing implores a designer.
I found this statement at www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.
In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:
The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3
This is very telling. Many atheists, including those in this forum, are truly waiting for a miracle if they are waiting to see how abiogenesis happened. There is absolutely no shred of scientific evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis has happened in the past or will ever happen in the future. It doesn't even fit the world that we live in. Nowhere in present reality does life come from non-life. It is therefore logical and reasonable to conclude that abiogenesis is a farce. Those that believe otherwise bear the burden of proof.
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
May I direct you to the second post in this thread? No one is saying that abiogenesis is a fact. WE JUST DO NOT PLUG GOD IS AS THE ANSWER WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. If you want to do that, no one is stopping you.
The end.
You make my brain hurt with all the science and elements and the polymers and the oy!!!
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
What about Your DNA? I would argue that DNA is an example of a designer. Here's why: Your DNA has information about you. Your hair, and eye color etc. I would argue that Information can only come from Intelligence. The SETI project seeks to find information such as a message or code like in the movie Contact to say there is intelligent life out in the universe. Using that same logic, information in your DNA can only come from intelligence. I would argue that an intelligent designer is responsible for human life. Am I wrong in my thinking here? If so, how?
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
JCE wrote:
May I direct you to the second post in this thread? No one is saying that abiogenesis is a fact. WE JUST DO NOT PLUG GOD IS AS THE ANSWER WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. If you want to do that, no one is stopping you.
The end.
Fair enough. But I haven't plugged God in to everything that I don't understand. You just assume that I do because most Christians argue this way. My question is then if abiogenesis is false, what is the alternative for the atheist?
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
This is a false dichotomy - there is no either or in this situation. Abiogenesis is simply the best theory presented to date. Even with the limited evidence available for abiogenesis it is still more than there is for god. My alternative? Follow the science and see where it leads. I do not believe it will lead to god.
1However, computer-simulated evolution has convincingly demonstrated that such specification and adaptation to function does not need to have been designed. It is true thatthe software responsible was designed, but what was designed was the simulation world, and not those features that emerged in those simulations.
And if some biological feature was designed, then using your analogy with human designers, the designers responsible must be multiple, with finite capabilities, and fallible. Not some single perfect being.
Extraterrestrial visitors or time travelers or elves or ...
Chan and others still haven't addressed the issue: Abiogenesis is just as much a problem for theists. How did the first life form and from what? We all agree that abiogenesis is a fact! Life came from none-life. Was it clay formed by magic or was it molecules combining to form more complex structures? Stanley Miller already proved that amino acids can be formed from inorganic matter.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
File this thread under "god of the gaps" and be done with it. We've all heard, and refuted, all this nonsense before.
Chan, I think your arguments have have gone way over their heads.
Wrong, we understood. It was not a very good argument.
According to biblical mythology your religion also claims "life came from non-life", right? Remember.... Adam from dirt?
How hypocritical to criticize one theory of life from non-life but attribute truthfulness to a fairy tale of special creation.
.
...and I would also add for clarity one more point:
Two of Chan's posts (the Marowitz one and another one) assume that the process leading to abiogenesis is "random."
It is much more likely to have been a *non-random* natural process. Selection, for example, is a mechanism that can readily bypass the astronomical odds of pure random chance (and thus Marowitz's calculations are not evidence that a "miracle" is required).
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
We are being a bit speculative here, but we have solid science to support such speculation.
Then you'll have to define design and explain why the designer requires no designer, and do so in a scientifically supportable fashion.
The entire notion of design is greatly vexed by human interpretation and perspective. Do snowflakes have a designer? They are intricate, comples and unique - so obviously a higher intellect made each one, right?
Or is it simpler and more accurate to say that the formation of crystaline ice latices is a property of water when it gets cold in our atmosphere?
Similar reasoning applies to DNA and the like. Spiral helixes are simply how proteins fold due to electochemical properties. There is no magic here. We understand why it is as it is. There is no need to go furthur.
That's just what water does. No invisble hand is at work here.
I agree.
You're wrong, as I've explained.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.