Evolutionists, atheists, a question related to your stuff?

Question

If abiogenesis has been disproven once and for all, how could life arise spontaneously in the first place?

I appreciated some answers, but some just come here and attack my belief

Answer 1

Under the primitive Earth's atmosphere, it's definitely possible

- Primitive Earth's atmosphere: mostly consists of 92.2 % of Carbon dioxide, instead of about 0.03% of today
- Ozone layer: There was no ozone layer, enormous amounts of energy, in the form of ultraviolet radiation, reached the surface of the Earth
- Lightning: Lightning storms in the atmosphere contributed great amounts of energy as well.
- Water vapor: Water filled in Earth's crust, carrying many nutritious dissolved compounds to the sea.
- Meteorites: Traces of amino acids and other compounds have been found inside them..

Read about Miller and Urey's apparatus, problems solved

Edit: Yeah, you better be scared

Answer 2

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

A primordial protoplasmic globule
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

check out the link and educate yourself please

Answer 3

Where did you get the 'disproven once and for all' from? You must bring forth evidence for such a claim.

Plus, there are several models for abiogenesis, it is not a single unified theory like evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Personally, I say I don't know. I reserve judgment until further evidence is in. Eventually one of these or some completely other hypothesis promote to scientific theory.

Answer 4

How is this a religious question?

"Abiogenesis?" Something has been disproven once and for all? I think if some previously unheard of aspect has completely debunked the major scientific theory of our time, I think you owe us at least a footnote about where to find this headline.

Answer 5

When exactly was abiogenesis "disproven once and for all"?

I do recall that abiogenesis was disproven as the explanation for the sudden appearance of various microbes after the invention of microscopy, but that's hardly the same thing...

Inventing "God" doesn't resolve your dilemma (or mine), since by your logic, something must have created Him.

Answer 6

You leave my stuff out of this. :P

abiogenesis hasn't been disproven once and for all.

Seriously, you need to ask this of people who have doctorates in these fields such as physics and whatnot. I have no idea where life came from. I don't even have a decent theory. But not knowing isn't a valid excuse for the lame cop-out of "goddidit!"

Answer 7

It hasn't. There are many different theories about abiogenesis and perhaps the biggest steps in understanding it will come when we find independent life elsewhere in the universe - a 'second genesis' as the scientists like to say. With only one example of life to study, it's difficult to draw conclusions. The one thing we *do* know is that we live in a universe which is rich with self-organising organic molecules, so it's entirely possible that life is ubiquitous in the universe.

Answer 8

Life does not arise spontaneously. Nothing is spontaneous in the real world. There are precursers and indications and warnings and signs and growth and development and most of all, evolution.

Answer 9

Why do you care about where we came from? We are here and we should make the best of what we have and not go into theories that just make us antagonise each other. It makes no difference whether it was Adam and Eve who created us or whether we came from some pool, We are alive and when you have really found out the meaning of life these things are just rudimentary.

Answer 10

Evolution does not say there is no God. In fact, it has nothing to say on that subject. Evolution also does not offer a theory on how the earth or the universe was created. Darwin's theory is so misrepresented. I really wish people would take the time to learn this stuff before asking these questions.