Abiognesis: excerpt from a book.

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

The forum discussion centers on the concept of entropy in the context of abiogenesis, specifically referencing a passage from the book "Abiogenesis: How Life Began." Participants clarify that the waste products of life, such as methane and acetate, are closer to equilibrium than the original reactants, indicating an increase in entropy. This process is essential for understanding how life emerges from simpler organic compounds. The conversation emphasizes the role of ordered molecules in sustaining life and the continuous conversion of these molecules into less ordered forms, thereby increasing entropy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics and entropy principles
  • Familiarity with abiogenesis theories and concepts
  • Knowledge of organic chemistry, particularly regarding metabolic processes
  • Basic grasp of polymerization and its implications in biological systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of hydrothermal vents in abiogenesis
  • Study the principles of entropy in biological systems
  • Explore the process of RNA polymerization and its significance in early life forms
  • Investigate current theories and hypotheses surrounding abiogenesis
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in biochemistry, evolutionary biology, and anyone interested in the origins of life and the scientific principles of entropy and metabolism.

  • #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.