Abiogenesis is the spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter. Remember, without abiogenesis, evolution can't even get started.
2007-02-19 05:17:10 · 12 answers · asked by David S 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In response to Blue Octagon: I really do want to hear your opinions on this subject, and I'm not just being argumentative. I did, in fact, post this question on a science forum, but only got two responses, so I thought I'd try it here, since I know there are many atheists who read this forum.
2007-02-19 05:30:11 · update #1
I am not an "evolutionist." Science does not require belief, and the "-ist" suffix carries the connotation that an "evolutionist" believes in evolution with faith; science doesn't work that way.
I am also not a scientist. I don't know or even particularly care about the mechanics of abiogenesis. I leave advanced scientific principles to scientists. If you want an actual answer to this, ask it on a science board. I am sure they will be happy to help you. If you do not want an actual answer to this but are only being argumentative, stop being such a butthole.
________
My apologies for the "butthole" comment, then. Hopefully someone here knows more science than I. (I'm sure they do, there's some smart cookies on this board.)
2007-02-19 05:22:46 · answer #1 · answered by N 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You're directing this question to the wrong people. Evolution doesn't deal with how life started anymore than gravity deals with how gravity started. Evolution is the study of the change of life of time, not the origin of it. It's "Origin of the Species" (as in how different species came about) NOT "Origin of Life".
You might want to do a little research next time so you don't come off sounding ignorant... It's like asking astronomers about astrology, it's 2 totally different things often mistakenly clumped together by people who lack education on the topic.
You'd want to ask this of someone who postulates the abiogenesis hypothesis.
The Miller experiment was fascinating and does give some credence to the abiogenesis hypothesis, but it is unrelated to evolution.
2007-02-19 05:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Mike K 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Scientists have some pretty good ideas about how it happened, and are still working on it -- but the answer right now is, "we don't know for sure yet."
In science, unlike religion, it's OK to say "we don't know YET" -- because science only needs more time and research to increase the likelihood that we *will* know for sure at some point in the future.
So, right back at you: tell me in biological, scientific terms, how the first human came to be in your religious mythology? What, you can't answer? You have no biological basis for your superstitious beliefs? And you're doing no research (because none is possible) to be able to one day provide an answer? All you can say is, "god did it," which explains nothing and for which there is no evidence of any kind? So your religious superstition provides no answers at all, and never will -- while science offers the only chance to ever understand the origins of life through continued study and research. Hmm...
2007-02-19 05:28:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If amino acids can be created in a laboratory why can't they be created spontaneously on a planet where all the necessary elements exist? Viewed in the context of a timescale of hundreds of millions of years the odds against life occuring diminish to the extent where it would seem more likely than not that abiogenesis would occur spontaneously somewhere on the planet.
2007-02-19 05:27:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How life arose is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It matters not in the slightest to evolution whether the first living things came about through supernatural or natural means; the evidence for the common ancestry of populations (including species) that makes it possible to infer a single phylogenetic tree of all life is still the same in either case. Once there is life -- with heritable variation -- descent is allowed to accumulate modifications -- to evolve -- and populations will unavoidably eventually split, originating new species.
2007-02-19 05:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Abiogenesis is not part of biological evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not even touch on the starting point for life. These are two different theories. You may as well ask 'evolutionists' about the Big Bang.
Why not direct your question at abiogenesisists?
2007-02-19 05:21:46 · answer #6 · answered by The Truth 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey, he found something.
Evolution != abiogenesis.
abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis
evolution is scientific theory
We're still working on the very start of it all, and we're not afraid to admit we don't know everything. But amazingly, this is NOT a good reason to say christian sky daddy did it. In fact, that would be the last thing one would say if one were in a rational frame of mind.
2007-02-19 05:25:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I am an 'evolutionist', but I have not confused method with doer.
It took God to start life here (and everywhere else, as far as I know). So, if He used evolution to accomplish that, it doesn't matter to me. No more that if He spoke the entire universe into existance as we see it today....
What's the problem? Evolution is a tool, not a cause and only a theory at that!
2007-02-19 05:26:14 · answer #8 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
TO ZERO COOL: Stanley Millers experiment proved nothing. He said so himself...
2007-02-19 05:28:13 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thank you , Zero Cool, I was looking for reference to that experiment.
2007-02-19 05:22:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋