Don’t know why it took me this long to even think of this question (maybe I did years ago and never wrote it down), but here’s what I was thinking about: There’s dozens of different theories of abiogenesis (and several mythologies too but frankly bible-thumping has exactly zero place in this thread and I recommend keeping that to yourself), but the general gist of the lot is that some four billion years ago or so, natural electric/thermal/chemical reactions between organic chemicals in the oceans formed into complex self-replicating chemicals that eventually organized into more complex systems of self-replicating chemicals which eventually resembled the life that exists today. Cool peas. There’s plenty of experiments demonstrating possible mechanisms by which this could happen so let’s take that for granted.
So my thought then is that, our oceans not only contain plenty of simple organic matter, but also plenty of more complex organic matter. Presumably, new life could still spontaneously generate. The general answer I found doing a quick Google search was that either abiogenesis can no longer occur because the present environment is different than it was a few billion years ago, or that it may possibly still occur, but it doesn’t matter because existing life can easily consume it in its simplified state.
I remember reading someone (I think it was Craig Venter but I could be totally getting it wrong) was taking samples from improbable places and discovering thousands of new species everywhere he went. Even coal mines, highly acidic and nasty places without all that much natural moisture, were rich in microbial biodiversity. So it seems fair to suppose that new life would be immediately crowded out. But why suppose? Can a new virus spontaneously generate and infect an ocean population? Is it possible for a spontaneously generated gene to self-insert into a hapless microbe, creating a new mutation? Are there any places on earth at all sequestered enough that new life would be able to form and reach critical mass before it was all consumed? Can that still be happening today?
Just thinking about that, maybe this will be an interesting discussion, maybe it’ll make a big argument, maybe noone will care. Cheers.
i hate to let you know, but as a devoted bible thumper, i believe the creation story and the creation story alone.
I’ve heard the theories and the rants. I am no more convinced than the last time. Louis Pasteur, a Christian scientist responsible for today’s methods of Pasteurization, already disproved the whole Abiogenesis theory before through the Swan-Neck tests i believe. The persistence on proving the matter should tell you something isn’t right.
all in all, I’m just stating my beliefs on the matter because I want people to know where I stand. Whether or not people like me afterwards doesn’t matter frankly. I don’t need friendship on this board. If i’m banned from the BA community, then it still wouldn’t matter either. There are many other Blender groups out there and i’ve always got my Deviantart page ;).
and I could always make a website too.
Just know I disagree.
I think this is less likely as a virus is a complex chemical construct. I is more likely that existing viruses/parts of a virus mutate.
Who knows!?
At the end it will be race between the likelihood of “randomizing” new organic and invasion of “old-mutated” organics. Even without the invasion (e.g. after an isolation) question is how stable the new organic is. Will it survive for a certain amount of time.
Does it follows the pattern of the known organics? We know this worked before, but we do not know if there are other ways.
Then just leave it be.
You very well know that it’s against the forum rules, that most people here disagree with you, yet you got to post anyways even stating how much you don’t care.
Generally, compulsive. I can’t just let it sit there without making a remark. I think it’s a very elaborate lie after all. And we all know how we’re looking for “truth”.
Mainly, i try to at least say something that get’s heads thinking. That way people can at least start questioning the validity of the OP while not saying much in regards to a full on flame war.
It’s also something to state that I’m open to any questions one may have but for the sake of keeping the boiler room at a comfy temperature, i beg you ask them via Private Message.
I’ve got an opinion to stand for here that most people consider you a lunatic to believe. I will probably go to my grave defending it.
Actually it was brought up in the first post and I find that a little seedy. I personally find my belief system to be irrelevant and something I and all have a right to. This is the reason for the rule and I think it’s a good one. Nice try BTW.
I like more the comet alternative. Weaker gravitation implies more three-dimensional possibilities for matter to play. On the earth life appears only on the tiny boundary layer, it is almost matter that does not belong to earth at all. In view of probability, there is more time available on a comet than on earth.
The fact we share the most of our genetic heritage with ALL living beings, seems to indicate that life started on earth only once, not two, not three times. The theory of a ‘primordial soup’ doesn’t fit, and speaking of favorable conditions to birth of life has no sense, IMHO.
You know what real problem is, with any creation theory be it evolution or creationism?
Both have to interpolated from the current data we have…and is based on our current scientific knowledge which is pretty much guarantied to change…and our knowledge is based on a small amount of data; compared with what is out there in the universe.
The only way to prove it would be to go back in time…which is a another can of worms.:rolleyes:
That would make sense under a purely natural selection based model, but modern genetic science has discovered that the genome is much more flexible and mobile than that. It stands to reason that if genes are floating around all willy-nilly in viruses and by other vectors, new life could possibly be popping up all the time without anyone even noticing.
No. It’s not a controversial topic. It’s people talking among themselves about a topic that interests them. You were specifically not invited to this discussion, both in the original post and in the forum rules. If you’re so insecure about your beliefs that the mere fact that people want to have a friendly discussion based on something that directly contradicts them gets your panties in a twist, you might need to reconsider how much faith you actually have. If you’re so certain about how things are in the world, there’s no reason to think that the scientific community or the largest faith in the world will change it.
Very interesting, and very confounding also, thank you for the useful link!
Let me say though that your last statement is a too large step, for the moment at least.
Oh I don’t mean that it necessarily follows that life is still cropping up, just that that piece of evidence doesn’t contradict the possibility. I worded it poorly (I accidentally closed the tab earlier and hastily retyped it) but I think we can at least agree, given that knowledge, it might be possible.
errr…what?
It tries to explain how things came into being…right? Thus, it is a theory of how things were created and is then a creation theory.
It this case evolution lists the Big Bang as the thing that made creation.
Course, then fans of the Big Bang have to explain were the Big Bang (as well as the materials needed for the Big Bang) came from…
And in creationism people tend to believe that God is outside of time,the universe’s laws, and has no beginning or end.
Both the Evolution and Creation theories takes some degree of belief…both of them you have to believe that something came from nothing.
I am a Christian, but I don’t subscribe to any particular creation theory…If God is so mighty, Can’t he make anything in any way he pleases? Wither that be through Evolution or Creationism theory…or even through some other more bizarre theory.
My whole take on things can be summarized in one phrase “Don’t limit God.”
I been coming back to this thread every once in awhile since it started last night. My personal views dont match the OP or Bible Thumpers. However the one thing I have learned in my 30+ years, is topics like these are dangerous. It is hard to change the views of people who look at our creation in a scientific matter, or change the faith of the ones who are strongly religious. This creates nothing more than a flame war when it is conducted online, and a fierce argument when done in person. I say let people believe what they will. Because in the end of the discussion, nobody has gained any knowledge, and lots of people turn their heads in disgust. Its a pointless argument IMO. None of us truly know the secrets to our existence. I honestly believe that this will never change.
actually it is because there are even atheists who disagree with the abiogenesis theory.
It’s people talking among themselves about a topic that interests them.
im interested in it. I just don’t believe it.
You were specifically not invited to this discussion, both in the original post and in the forum rules.
Ah yes but there’s self invitation.
If you’re so insecure about your beliefs that the mere fact that people want to have a friendly discussion based on something that directly contradicts them gets your panties in a twist, you might need to reconsider how much faith you actually have.
The same thing happens in a discussion about Christian doctrine. Only, whereas im the only Christian confronting you all on the matter, there are usually MANY atheists tying to debunk christianity in the christian discussion.
and the way i see it, people are being lead blindly to their deaths here. Can’t let em go that direction.
If you’re so certain about how things are in the world, there’s no reason to think that the scientific community or the largest faith in the world will change it.
I’m certain of how things are in the world but the way I see it is that everyone is dying while ignoring salvation. It is mine and many others job to let people know of that salvation.
So can it, kid.
Only for this time because I have more important things to do than argue evolution in a forum thread: like say, working with toon shaders in the BGE or redoing a book perhaps.
but do know that there will come a day where i will be threatened with death for believing what i do. And that in those times, i can not shut up just because a gun is in my face.
The point is to spark thought, discussion, and sharing knowledge.
That is generally the sort of reaction that this thread is intended to provoke. The best thing you can do in this thread is share links to websites, encyclopedia articles, TED talks, &c. that are informative and turn people on to new ideas. One of the worst things you can do in this thread is try to derail the discussion with ad nauseam drones about how talking about biology is controversial.
Here’s Craig Venter announcing when he built the first synthetic organism in 2010. If you can get past the history lessons and nasal monotone voice, he explains some of the mechanisms and challenges behind creating a new species from scratch.
That may be what the OP intended, but in truth, the only ones that will gain knowledge from this are the ones that share similar beliefs to what the OP posted about. I am all for enlightening those that are open to different views. But in contrast of averages of the entire world, this is a slim crowd. There are forums out there that a discussion like this would be more appropriate, at least IMO.
I’m always amazed by how easily people get baited into these threads. All of you must have realized that this topic has gone (if it was not already at the start) very close to a flame war. All of you also know that discussions like this are prohibited for a reason, yet every time there is a thread like this, more or less the same people are arguing.
This discussion won’t go anywhere, there are people both for and against the idea who are not willing to change their beliefs.
To avoid having to report multiple posts I will report this post and hope the thread gets closed.
If that does not represent you, kindly stay out of this thread. I don’t go into the automotive thread to whine about how I don’t like cars and I think that modern street design is unfair to pedestrians, and that talking about automobiles is controversial to people who think that public transit and pedestrian infrastructure is the only responsible way to get around. If your only contribution is to say that someone could complain, you have nothing to say that is relevant to this thread, and you’re only serving to have an otherwise healthy chat locked, which is unfair to the people who want to talk about it. All the people who claim to be directly offended by the topic have already pledged to stay out, as they well should.
Because I try not to post a reply without relating it back to the original topic, here’s an interesting quote from a Ask the Atheists:
[. . .]Consider a possible experiment that completely removed all living things from a square kilometer of ocean. (This is of course practically impossible but should illustrate the point.) The surface area of earth is 510,065,600 square kilometers, roughly two thirds of which is ocean, or 340,043,733 square kilometers. So our experiment occupies about 3 billionths (0.0000003%) of the available ocean. So we can expect the rate of abiogenesis observed by this experiment to be three billionths of the rate of abiogenesis that occurs naturally worldwide.
In other words, even with this very favorable estimate for the wordlwide rate of abiogenesis and an impossibly sensitive experiment, the chance of an abiogenesis event to be observed in a hundred years is orders of magnitude less than one in a trillion.
Consider now that any practical experiment would not take place in a square kilometer of ocean, but in a laboratory. Consider that abionenesis events that were to occur might not be easily identified. Consider that a hundred year experiment is not very likely. Of course, experimenters are clever and they might somehow boost the rate of abiogenesis. Even in the above hypothetical experiment, if they boosted the rate by a million times then the chances to observe abiogenesis are still less than one in a million.
I think it’s easy to see that we shouldn’t expect abiogenesis to be observed in a lab for a very long time.
The full response bases its answer off an assumption that abiogenesis occurred in one relatively short period about 3.5 billion years ago. The equation works the other way around: If scientists were to observe abiogenesis in a laboratory setting replicating naturally occurring conditions, and were able to consistently reproduce those results, it might stand to reason that those same natural conditions, worldwide, would produce an enormous amount of new life on a regular basis. Whether this new life survives to self-replicate is another question, but it does make one think.
