Abiognesis: excerpt from a book.

  • Thread starter Thread starter nobahar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of abiogenesis, specifically focusing on the interpretation of a passage from a book that discusses the role of entropy in the emergence of life, particularly in relation to hydrothermal vents. Participants seek clarification on the meaning of certain phrases related to entropy and waste products in the context of chemical reactions and life processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the passage discusses how waste products of life increase the entropy of the system, suggesting that these products are closer to equilibrium than the original reactants.
  • Others argue that the relationship between waste products and reactants is complex, questioning how waste products can be closer to equilibrium without the reactants also approaching it.
  • A participant suggests that the comparison is temporal, indicating that waste products are evaluated at a later time compared to the initial concentration of reactants.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the existence of experts in abiogenesis, labeling the field as speculative and criticizing external resources as lacking scientific rigor.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that while complex organic molecules may be metabolized, this process ultimately increases the total entropy of the system.
  • A hypothesis is introduced regarding RNA polymerization in the presence of UV light, positing that this process may contribute to increasing entropy and forming early replicators.
  • Participants discuss the implications of entropy in biological systems, noting that while entropy generally indicates less available energy for work, the relationship is nuanced.
  • One participant challenges the notion that polymerization is always associated with a decrease in entropy, seeking further clarification on this point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the interpretation of entropy in the context of abiogenesis, with no clear consensus on the implications of the discussed passage. Disagreements arise regarding the nature of expertise in the field and the validity of external resources.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of equilibrium and entropy as applied to the discussion, as well as the assumptions underlying the interpretations of the chemical processes involved in abiogenesis.

  • #31
Pythagorean said:
Jorge, the tone of the video is unfortunate but the content was not "pedantic speculation". It's a very reasonable guess as to how life could have started. The point I only that magic or supernatural wasn't required for life. That we can take a cause/effect approach.

I guess, realistically one could complain that the video provoked religious discussion and is therefore a violation of PF.

Im an atheist, so I perhaps selfishly never realized this, I just ignored the anti-theist tones. Because again, I'm an atheist, not an anti theist.

I found the video useful, I wouldn't consider it anti-theist, since it attacked the arguments of theists, not theists themselves.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
As a biologist who has written on this subject as well as the proper place for religious concepts such as creation as philosophy and not as science and who has never pushed creationism in this forum or any other, let me explain.

Science has not (yet) created life in the lab - so there are no "experts" in the creation of life from the inanimate - abiogenesis. The path pursued to study this phenomenon is the best scientists can think of now - but it is only speculation, only hypothesis, and an unsuccessful one to this point. Remember - this is the creation of life, not more complex molecules that folks speculate could be life's presurcors by some unknown process to establish vitality. In fact, the failure to produce life by the scientific concepts pursued to this point may well indicate these folks are on the wrong track.
A video dramatizing this unvalidated hypothesis is distrubing as it communicates an ynvalidated hypothesis as having substance and is consistent with the natural philosophy concept that preceeded the development of the scientific process. Dumbed down - this concept says wise folks can imagine the answer cause they're wise. Science says they answer is in the experiment and so far there is no experiment that produced life.
As science assumes all is knowable - we will one day know the answer but as Hamlet said, there are more things on heven and Earth than are dreamt of in your (natural) philosophy. So it may well be a concept not considered to this point.
 
  • #33
JorgeLobo said:
As a biologist who has written on this subject as well as the proper place for religious concepts such as creation as philosophy and not as science and who has never pushed creationism in this forum or any other, let me explain.

Science has not (yet) created life in the lab - so there are no "experts" in the creation of life from the inanimate - abiogenesis. The path pursued to study this phenomenon is the best scientists can think of now - but it is only speculation, only hypothesis, and an unsuccessful one to this point. Remember - this is the creation of life, not more complex molecules that folks speculate could be life's presurcors by some unknown process to establish vitality. In fact, the failure to produce life by the scientific concepts pursued to this point may well indicate these folks are on the wrong track.
A video dramatizing this unvalidated hypothesis is distrubing as it communicates an ynvalidated hypothesis as having substance and is consistent with the natural philosophy concept that preceeded the development of the scientific process. Dumbed down - this concept says wise folks can imagine the answer cause they're wise. Science says they answer is in the experiment and so far there is no experiment that produced life.
As science assumes all is knowable - we will one day know the answer but as Hamlet said, there are more things on heven and Earth than are dreamt of in your (natural) philosophy. So it may well be a concept not considered to this point.

The problem in your assumptions here Jorge is that "life" or rather the origin of life doesn't exist in a bubble. If it did, I'd certainly agree with you that there are no abiogenesis experts. But that isn't the case.

Abiogenesis describes the field of science that studies how abiotic agents can become biotic replicating agents. Certainly no one has ever done that in a lab, that doesn't mean however there aren't experts in the different areas of the field. Such as say--on the molecular biology of autocatalysis or prebiotic chemistry or something like say, the thermodynamics of chemical systems. As these, and many more subjects, are required to the field of study in question--There can be experts (ex·pert/ˈekspərt/
Noun: A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.) in the field of and science of abiogenesis.

I agree about the video though (though I didn't watch it, but I'll take your word for its misrepresentation of science), but then again dumbed down: Being a "biologist" who has "written" on the subject is just a nice little ol example of argument from authority. :wink: Being the science-type then, I think you should be equally as weary of any such argument made on the basis of said appeal for its lack of credibility as the video--No? (of course turning those cunning skills to introspective purposes is always much harder than flexing them extrospectively :-p)
 
  • #34
Sure - define it as you will - knowing a lot about chemistry that hasn't established initiation of lifebut that was what they were hoping.

Truth is not arrogance. The credentials were offered largely in response to the claim of pushing creationism.
 
  • #35
Abiogenesis originally showed promise at the level of logic but has to date been a sterile research agenda.

"There is a wealth of scientific "EVIDENCE" ... pertaining to abiogenesis." I found this statement to be rather ambitious.

Can anyone site any current work on the topic?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Quickless said:
Abiogenesis originally showed promise at the level of logic but has to date been a sterile research agenda.

"There is a wealth of scientific "EVIDENCE" ... pertaining to abiogenesis." I found this statement to be rather ambitious.

Can anyone site any current work on the topic?
Thanks to ViewsofMars.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html

https://www.gl.ciw.edu/bios/hjcleaves[/URL]

[PLAIN]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/long-neglected-experiment-gives-.html[/URL]

There's more, but I'm busy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Why was my post deleted? I posted an 'indirect' thanks to Jackmell. Since its been deleted, thanks Jackmell for the explanation.
 
  • #38
nobahar said:
Why was my post deleted? I posted an 'indirect' thanks to Jackmell. Since its been deleted, thanks Jackmell for the explanation.

That's ok, that's alright. No need to thank me. I'm happy to help. For free too! Think now we'll both get deleted . . .
 
  • #39
Thanks, ryan_m_b, for that video link. I popped into this forum to ask about the state of research, and have already found a wealth of helpful terms for the popcorn-popping layman, such as myself, to mull over.

What I would like to know is if the prebiotic examples (or analogues thereof) in the video are actually found in and around hot vents today, ie, any plausible, intermediate, replicating material out there in around ocean vents now?

Thanks.