Scientific views on abiogenesis?

Question

What are your favourite theories? What is the dominant one in science at the moment?

Urey Mills (was it?).
Iron Sulphur World.
RNA world.
Organic coumpounds from space.
Cells from space (or cell wall materials on asteroids which formed cells when they hit the earth's water)

Those I know of. Are they the mainsream ones, and are there many others? What sites should I visit. I know of a few astrobiology sites, but that's it.

No spam please - looks at j

Answer 1

A modified Stanley Miller view (the famous experiment is called the "Urey-Miller experiment"). The modification is in the composition of the early Earth atmosphere -- more "neutral" and not so much "reducing." RNA, monomers, and lipid micelles formed through physical processes (sunlight, clay mud, ultraviolet, lightning).

Hundreds of millions of years of this, and a protobiont formed.

Answer 2

Abiogenesis has never been observed, cannot be reproduced in the laboratory and cannot be tested. It is therefore also ‘unscientific’ and must be accepted as a miracle of faith by the atheist.

Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4111/

Answer 3

------------------LEEEET ME TELL YOU-------------------------
dont listen to any one else (no offense guys), trust me, they are a bunch of know-it-alls (again, no offense). Hi, im Jubayer, hi, nice to meet you.
this is the thing: EVOLUTION may be correct - Darwin had nothing better to do (or had no other way) of making up such a controversial and completely novel biological principle. most importantly, the evolutionists say that it started with the amino acid - smallest unit of a protein. they say that it "by chance" formed the correct chemical structure of the amino acid we know today.

but here is the thing: PROBABILITY deals in how likely an occurrence is about to occur. an amino acid (smallest unit of a protein) must consist of carbon atom backbones, then it must form the correct links with the other atoms like oxygen and nitrogen (called peptide bonds), and then the entire molecule must form the right-hand shape (rather than the left hand shape because everything in life is in the right-hand shape and never the left).
the chances of each of those steps (and there are more but i forgot them) is somewhere near 1 in 50 to 1 in 5000. now mathematics predicts that anything near 1 in 900 is pretty near improbable; adding up all the probabilities so that random atoms can form the specific peptide bonds comes to about 1 x 10 to the power of 93. that means 1 followed by 93 zeros.........absolutely impossible.
the universe has not been around for that long to provide enough time for the atoms to randomly form this way.

what about this: PROTEINS are just a small part of a cell: the cell is made up of billions of billions of proteins all arranged in the correct way to make bigger proteins and structures in side the cell. now what would be the chances that the atoms came together in the correct way, shape, amount and then in the correct order; and then these formed bonds with other amino acids and then they came together with 50 more amino acids to form proteins; then these came together to make membranes, and then an ENTIRE cell. there is no way that chance could allow for a process so specific to occur.
REMEMBER: chance means random and freak incidents, and their rate of occurrence - the careful, deliberate and precise nature of biological life testifies that it is beyond random and freakish!

listen to this: evolutionists say that MUTATIONS lead to evolution and is how bacteria progressed into more complex life forms. GENETICS 101: mutations always lead to a worsening of the previous situation. not one mutation in the human genome bears glad tidings or good fortune. any mutations that do occur, they happen in the areas of DNA that dont code for any proteins (97% of DNA is non-functional).


ok so what about this: CLEARLY, there must have been something that brought about the big bang and all the requirements for the peptide bond, something that allowed all the precise, specific and perfect balances to occur in order to allow for the first bacteria to form in the first place.

it is up to you if you want to believe in a metaphysical force, or is you still want to deny the existence of God. but one last thing: anything that is made HAS to have a maker, anything that is destroyed HAS to have destroyer, anything that happens MUST be triggered , and that trigger itself must be applied by something (or someone).

if you really want to look at real-life examples then look up the book entitled: For Men Of Understanding by Harun Yahya (a christian-born doctor that converted to Islam)