Law of abiogenesis?

[JaeIsGod]

I have been meaning to ask something for a while now , but I never got around to it. Anyway here goes

My parents always buy this christian tv guide and sometimes when im bored I read it. Some time ago there was an article about evolution and how it sucked. They had this guy , who they claimed was one of the leading figures in biology and blablabla. Unfortunatly I dont remember his name , but anyway , one of his arguments against evolution was something like this

"And then there is the law of abiogenesis , which sais life can only give birth to life of the same kind"

Now I know very little about biology and all (im still in highschool =p ) , but isnt abiogenesis something totally different? This guy is talking bull right?

[Evolutionist]

total bull.

abiogenesis is the theory of "life from non-life" as anti-evolutionists like to put it. hovind said something along the lines of "from rock to dog".

anyways, abiogenesis is about how simple replicating polymers formed the first RNA molecules and it all went from there. here are some links you may find interesting:

early evolution (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html)

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

[Roland98]

Another comment you'll often hear in conjunction with the "law of abiogenesis" is that it was disproved by Pasteur. Pasteur did experiments showing that bacteria were present in the air, and that maggots did not spontaneously come to life in raw meat. He disproved the spontaneous generation of complex organisms--this is not akin to abiogenesis.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
"And then there is the law of abiogenesis , which sais life can only give birth to life of the same kind"

Perhaps he was refering to this trite (http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1992/d9204g.htm).

Simply put, scientific "laws" become laws because scientists fell like calling them that. "Law" is just part of their name. Modern science shuns away from such high falooting rhetoric. This is especially true in biology where everything has exeptions, even "laws."

In reality, Pasteur's observations only pertain to the state of life as it is now. In fact we know the second part is false even now because of mutations.

[RufusAtticus]

What creationists don't realize is that a strict adherence to the "law of biogenesis" destroies their entire position. After all if living things can only come from other living things like them, then it is impossible for God to have created anything. Also the earth must be infinitely old because given any living thing there has to be another living thing to produce it, ad infinitum.

[Albion]

This law of biogenesis, particularly as trotted out during creationism-evolution discussions, doesn't seem to have much life outside the confines of the creationist ministry websites.

[Quantum Ninja]

Holy shit! Rufus, I think I'm now stupider for reading that link!

I dug around through that trash for awhile and found this on another page (http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1993/d9305e.htm):

The question is: which idea, evolution or creation, is better supported by the facts? A careful study of this subject will show that "creation" is much better supported than "evolution" is.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ignoring the author's false dichotomy between evolution and creation, he clearly contradicts himself on that page. From that same article:

The truth is, the way living creatures came into existence in the beginning is not a question that science can answer. For something to be true "science," you must be able to see it, and do experiments to either prove it, or show it to be false. This just can't be done with "creation" because no human was there to see it, and it cannot be tested.

So creation can't be observed, tested, verified, or falsified in any way, yet it's "much better supported" than evolution, which has volumes upon volumes of supporting evidence and has been the subject of scrupulous research for the past century? What the hell is wrong with these people? :banghead:

[Evolutionist]

heh heh heh, i loved the first two paragraphs:

Sometimes you will hear scientists speak of a hypothesis (high-POTH-eh-sis). This means that they have an idea (a "guess") about something, but do not yet have any facts to tell them if their idea is true or false. Sometimes scientists talk about a theory. If something is a theory, that means there are facts which show it might be true. Further testing will settle the matter.

However, if scientists speak of a law in science, they are talking about something which has been shown to be true all the time. In science, a law means there are no exceptions to the rule. The Law of Gravity is one example of this. Everyone knows that gravity holds things down—no exceptions. Gravity is not just a theory, it's a law.

it's amasing at the lack of knowledge shown by these people :banghead: - and i loved the "guess" translation of hypothesis... reminds me of hovinds "evolutionists believe we evolved from a rock" crap.... :rolleyes:

[Chiron]

Here there be shenanigans of Cretic proportions:
However, if scientists speak of a law in science, they are talking about something which has been shown to be true all the time. In science, a law means there are no exceptions to the rule. The Law of Gravity is one example of this. Everyone knows that gravity holds things down—no exceptions. Gravity is not just a theory, it's a law.
This is, quite obviously, perfectly accurate. There are no exceptions to things being held down. For example, "aero-planes" do not exist, because they would, hypothetically (also known as "damnfool imagination"), violate the Law of Gravity. Likewise, things such as "birds" and "bats" do not exist. Your arms are not suspended above the surface of the Earth. And speaking of the Earth, neither it nor any of the other planets orbit the Sun; they are held down by Gravity. In fact, the words "flight" and "orbit", among others, are subversive Oldspeak. They will be expunged from the language of Newspeak.

-Chiron
And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[Cross Examiner]

Evolutionist et al:

I read your first link. The following startled me:

"The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material."

The author glibly skipped a few steps methinks. Maybe you can help. How did the first membranes, RNA and DNA "form" (aka synthesize) in the supposed reducing atmosphere, exactly? Have we been able to replicate this amazing feat (please, please don't point me to Miller-Urey circa 1953)? I've got this crazy friend (scientist for Diversa, PhD BioChem) who says abio's got some serious 'splainin' to do. Is my crazy friend crazy? Thanks for your help!

Regards,
BGic

Yeah, I know. I totally ripped that "crazy friend" schtick from the Simpsons. Consider this the citations/bibliography.

[RufusAtticus]

Have we been able to replicate this amazing feat

Yeap. Check out an organic chemistry textbook, they usually have examples of abiotic ways to make RNA, DNA, and lipids.

(please, please don't point me to Miller-Urey circa 1953)

Why? It is still a valid experiment to show that abiotic processes can produce biotic chemicals.

[caravelair]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Is my crazy friend crazy?

no, just ignorant! you see, your crazy friend has never heard of the food chain. just ask this scientician...



what a great show!

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Evolutionist


it's amasing at the lack of knowledge shown by these people :banghead: - and i loved the "guess" translation of hypothesis... reminds me of hovinds "evolutionists believe we evolved from a rock" crap.... :rolleyes:

Even better is the way they have to include a pronunciation guide for "hypothesis." Gives you a clue who they perceive their audience to be.

[Cross Examiner]

RufusAtticus,

Yeap. Check out an organic chemistry textbook, they usually have examples of abiotic ways to make RNA, DNA, and lipids.

Surely there is a (free) http link to such abundant information. Care to share?

Why? It is still a valid experiment to show that abiotic processes can produce biotic chemicals.

Still valid? This guy here (http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Chase%20Nelson/millerurey.htm), listing several supporting reasons, seems to think that "scientific community has rejected the relevancy of the experiment." Now, this one's got a lot of footnotes to it yet retains it's accessibility; maybe you could critique the aforementioned piece for me? I really want to show my "scientitian" friend that he is way off. Thanks!

Regards,
BGic

[Wounded King]

Arguably the Urey-Miller experimet is commonly discarded as 'The Way Abiogenesis ocurred' but it still works as a proof of principle.

Your link says

At most, the experiment opened doors for new research.

To my mind this is the hallmark of a supremely successful piece of work.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Still valid? This guy here (http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Chase%20Nelson/millerurey.htm), listing several supporting reasons, seems to think that "scientific community has rejected the relevancy of the experiment." Now, this one's got a lot of footnotes to it yet retains it's accessibility; maybe you could critique the aforementioned piece for me? I really want to show my "scientitian" friend that he is way off. Thanks!

Regards,
BGic

I hope you don't mind me jumping in to answer some of this?

I'l quote the relevant portions of the link you presented.

No. Only 2% of the product consisted of amino acids,...

10% of it was organic, 2% amino acids. Considering the size of the experiment versus the size of the planet which it was intended to simulate, this would be a rather rich production of amino acids and organic material. This is argument over mere words and only invokes a modest *yawn*.

Point 1, words game.

Since this experiment produced such a mixture, as is usual for laboratory syntheses,10 it could just as easily be said that Miller created death, not life, in a test tube.

No. The L amino acids are present ( of which all proteins are made ). Those are the building blocks of life. Forget about the D amino acids and other organic compounds. The point is, L amino acids were created from conditions that resemble the earth's early atmosphere. ( Even if it's no longer thought to be the likely start of life over hydrothermal vents )

Point 2 is again just a words game.

Another of the ingredients of Miller's atmosphere, NH3, is quickly destroyed by ultraviolet light. The only way this can be shielded is by ozone (O3), which is in turn produced by the action of ultraviolet light on O2.

Ozone is not the only way ultraviolet light can be blocked. Molecular Hydrogen can absorb certain types of ultraviolet light as well. I mean, nearly everything that blocks or absorbs "normal" light will also work to absorb some UV as well.

As far as NH3 being particularly sensitive, surprise surprise, there is real scientific research approaching this "problem". It's also dated six years prior to the creation of this person's article...

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11536805&dopt=Abstract
.....One argument against such model atmospheres has been the short time scale for ammonia photodissociation by solar ultraviolet light. Here it is shown that ultraviolet absorption by steady-state amounts of high-altitude organic solids produced from methane photolysis may have shielded ammonia sufficiently that ammonia resupply rates were able to maintain surface temperatures above freezing.


That renders point 3 of his argument useless.

The conclusion does not follow from his poorly made arguments, even if they were accurate.

In the end, what you have here is just another common specimen of creationist propaganda.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Surely there is a (free) http link to such abundant information. Care to share?

I don't know. I've never looked for organic chemistry resources on the net. I suggest that you go to your local college library and try to find the information in organic chemistry textbooks.

Still valid? This guy here (http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Chase%20Nelson/millerurey.htm), listing several supporting reasons, seems to think that "scientific community has rejected the relevancy of the experiment."

Not true. Miller-Urey is relevant because it was the first example of abiotic processes producing biotic chemicals. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[KeithHarwood]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Not true. Miller-Urey is relevant because it was the first example of abiotic processes producing biotic chemicals. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I was under the impression that the first was Wohler's synthesis of urea in about 1828.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by KeithHarwood
I was under the impression that the first was Wohler's synthesis of urea in about 1828.

Doh! You're right. I guess MU was the first example of abiotic processes producing amino-acids.

[Dr.GH]

I must say that the "onelife" site linked above has a considerable amount of misinformation. I would not recommend it as a source for origin of life, or human evo, which are the only two sections I read.