frame

Is Abiogenesis possible?

2»

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Yes, it seems certain it happened with the only question being exactly how - because it was so long ago and there are multiple possibilities for specifically how abiogenesis could have occurred so it's nigh impossible to work out which of the possibilities is more likely..
    DawnBringerRiven
  • By the way. Spelling and grammar are going seriously downhill!.

    With regards to the issue in question.
    Before we can proffer any credible answers to this question.
    It would firstly be necessary to determine what "life" actually is.
    yolostide
  • I believe that abiogenesis might be not true.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • yolostide said:
    I believe that abiogenesis might be not true.

    Will you tell us why you have these beliefs.
  • yolostide said:
    I believe that abiogenesis might be not true.

    Will you tell us why you have these beliefs.
    Probably because Abiogenesis is a proofless excuse that says we all came from dissolving amino acids that turned into monkeys.
     
  • yolostide said:
    I believe that abiogenesis might be not true.

    Will you tell us why you have these beliefs.
    Probably because Abiogenesis is a proofless excuse that says we all came from dissolving amino acids that turned into monkeys
    Can you explain in more detail what you are trying to say here.
    I'm sure no one has ever seriously proposed that dissolving amino acids turn into monkey's.
    I would suggest that abiogenesis is a sound theory, rather than a "proofless excuse".

    Nonetheless, theory is merely theory, until proved otherwise.
    Therefore the onus is on you to disprove abiogenesis.
    Unfortunately your counter proposition, lacks any credible substance.
  • edited August 2017

    @Fredsnephew Umm the fact that the theory of abiogenesis says that we formed from dissolving amino acids (which has been proven impossible) which turned into monkeys (aka evolution), which eventually turned into us.
     
  • NightwingNightwing 49 Pts
    edited September 2017
    Since abiogenesis doesn't specify any actual mechanism for it to happen, it may be using a mechanism we don't know about.

    On the other hand, a cell is highly complex object. It's one thing to build a brick, quite another to build a city.

    It may be possible, but very very improbable. It may be so improbable that it isn't a practical to consider it possible. It only has to happen once, of course.

    DawnBringerRiven
  • Now a lot of good points here but I see there isn't any arguments for the abiogenesis side that really does the theory justice, I will present a better argument for abiogenesis done by someone else who has studied abiogenesis and knows a lot about it just so everyone in this forum understands abiogenesis a lot better. 



    "It turns out that it’s pretty easy to form many kinds of organic molecules, in a wide range of environments... There is a long history of attempts to create various organic molecules – such as amino acids – from simple precursors such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water, in conditions which simulate those of the early Earth."[1]

    Abiogenesis is not some fringe scientific concept; it should not be confused with the idea of spontaneous generation. The main hypothesis of abiogenesis is that organic materials on the Earth (coalescing from internal organic compounds and asteroid impacts) agglomerated into life forms. "Concentrated thus they react to form glyceraldehyde, amino acids, and the components of nucleosides." And so became the materials necessary for life.[2]

    Now on to how abiogenesis can result from simple organic compounds. 

    "Essential to the spontaneous origin of life was the availability of organic molecules as building blocks. The famous prebiotic soup’ experiment by Stanley Miller had shown that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, arose among other small organic molecules spontaneously by reacting a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water in a spark discharge apparatus. These conditions were assumed to simulate those on the primitive Earth. Already in 1922 Oparin had proposed that the early Earth had such a reducing atmosphere... It was suggested that only in a reducing atmosphere like this, synthesis of organic molecules – also sugars and organic bases, building blocks of nucleotides – would have been possible in large amounts."(Note that when the author uses the term "spontaneously", he refers to the reaction of molecules into compouds; it's not like the compounds suddenly came into existence.)[3][4][5]

    An illustration of the Miller-Urey experiment can be seen here:




    One of the most important building blocks of life is nucleotides, as they make up both DNA and RNA, the genetic "code" the defines every individual's characteristics. These nucleotides could easily have formed from the "primordial soup" as well, due to their similar chemical structure, as illustrated here[7]:




    These newly created organic compounds eventually coalesced into the first complex substance contained in life - RNA: "John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.""The study by the group of John Sutherland shows how nature could have spontaneously assembled pyrimidine ribonucleotide monomers from prebiotically plausible molecules through intermediates that contribute atoms to both the sugar and base portions of the ribonucleotides, thus avoiding a condensation step of sugar and base altogether"[3][6]

    This chart shows how this process is possible:




    Caption: "Pyrimidine ribonucleotide assembly options. Previously assumed synthesis of b-ribocytidine-2’,3’-cyclic phosphate 1 (blue; note the failure of the step in which cytosine 3 and ribose 4 are proposed to condense together) and the successful new synthesis described here (green). p, pyranose; f, furanose. (5 = Cyanoacetaldehyde, 6 = urea 6, cyanoacetylene 7, 8= cyanamide, 9 = glyceraldehyde, 10 = glycolaldehyde, 11 = 2-amino-oxazole, 12= pentose amino-oxazoline, arabinose derivative, 13 = anhydroarabinonucleoside)."[3]

    So essentially, this is the process of abiogenesis in a nutshell[7]:




    The next process would be to start to coalesce these life materials into a living organism. "The group of Jack Szostak has performed extensive and plausible studies that these fatty acid vesicles as containers for RNA would have allowed growth and replication merely by physico-chemical mechanisms, until a more sophisticated membrane machinery, steered by the cell itself and more resembling what is found in current organisms, would have taken their place... The group of Szostak also has demonstrated that nucleotides can pass through prebiotically plausible fatty-acid based vesicles and that non-enzymatic template copying of a model oligo dC DNA template can take place within them, which, in connection with the studies of vesicle growth and division, reveals in principle how a heterotrophic protocell may have functioned."[3][8]

    Further, "Extrapolating from all the above data, inside fatty-acid vesicles the first self-replicating RNA molecule could have started copying itself. During copying, various things would have been possible. High-fidelity copies would have yielded the same self-replicating molecule. Copies with errors would mostly have resulted in RNA that was non-functional, but in a minority of cases, they could have yielded RNA that copied itself faster. It has been shown that RNA/vesicle systems that contain more genetic material (which would have resulted from faster RNA replication) develop more internal tension than neighboring vesicles that do not contain as much RNA, and draw membrane material from them. Importantly, this would have allowed for natural selection of vesicles by competition even in the absence of the ability to synthesize their own membrane components and therefore to directly control their own growth. Thus, for the first time, a system would have had the ability to undergo Darwinian evolution by natural selection acting on variation. This would have been a new and crucial emergent property arising at the transition from non-life to life.."[3][9]

    This process can be illustrated here:



    Caption: "Conceptual model of a heterotrophic protocell. Growth of the protocell membrane results from the incorporation of environmentally supplied amphiphiles, whereas division may be driven by intrinsic or extrinsic physical forces. Externally supplied activated nucleotides permeate across the protocell membrane and act as substrates for the copying of internal templates. Complete template replication followed by random segregation of the replicated genetic material leads to the formation of daughter protocells."

    I am going to end my argument here with this quote: "This is among the simplest semblance of “life” that we have described, as biotic things commonly serve to create order from chaos (organize materials) in an effort to enhance their own survival. It wouldn’t take much to imagine that this could initiate a snowball effect, resulting in the hoarding of mass amounts of complex molecules, which would aid in the creation of small, self-replicating molecules that are capable of evolving to better survive in their environment (life)."[7]

    I've been through the majority of the important stages of abiogenesis and proving them. That last quote pretty much explains how a heterotrophic protocell could have evolved into prokaroytes, eukaroytes, and complex life. 

    Sources

    [1]: http://www.universetoday.com...;
    [2]: http://www.gla.ac.uk...
    [3]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
    [4]: Miller, SL. "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions." Science. 117 (1953): 528-529 
    [5]: Chyba C and Carl Sagan. "Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life." Nature. 355:125-132 
    [6]: http://www.nature.com...
    [7]: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com...#
    [8]: Mansy SS and Szostak JW. "Thermostability of model protocell membranes." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008): 13351-13355 
    [9]: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

    NOTE: Sources 4-5 and 8 were quoted from source 1.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?
    SilverishGoldNova
  • edited October 2017
    Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.

    Christ
     
  • Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.

    So what?


    SilverishGoldNova
  • Christ said:
    Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.

    So what?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Christ said:
    Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.

    So what?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

    Are you trying to tell me you are stoned?


    SilverishGoldNova
  • Christ said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Christ said:
    Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.

    So what?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

    Are you trying to tell me you are stoned?


    While I am stoned, this is not what I am trying to say. Maybe something shorter to read will explain the fallacy.
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/throwing-stones-everyones-favorite-fallacy
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Christ said:
    Abiogenesis is a theory for the origin of life widely accepted by supporters of evolution. I don't agree with it, there really isn't any evidence it is possible.
    Of course it's possible, you're here aren't you?

    False dilemma fallacy, "You're here" is not an argument.


    Kind of More of a non-sequtur.

    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • Either way, it's a fallacious argument. One can argue that Creationism is real because "you're here" which would be equally fallacious. 
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch