Abiogenesis, Hypothesis and Evidence of:

Discuss Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Geology, Math, Technology

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Abiogenesis, Hypothesis and Evidence of:

Post #1

Post by Neatras »

(All information below is shamelessly stolen from this well-researched reddit post, a kind of repository for our current evidence. Any additions would be appreciated, but I think a list like this makes its statement quite well enough already.)

Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, it is currently our best idea as to how life originated given the current evidence. Some say it contradicts the "law(very loosely named)" of biogenesis, but it doesn't. Biogenesis disproves the archaic idea that full formed modern lifeforms like maggots and and mice magically arise from inanimate matter like rotting corpses and dirty laundry. By contrast abiogenesis suggest that early life arose from complex chemical reactions and self replicating molecular compounds and structures. But is there any evidence for such an event? Yes:
__________________________________________________________________
Early Earth Chemistry:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
What we have observed:
__________________________________________________________________ Expanded info: __________________________________________________________________
Experimental Data:
__________________________________________________________________
RNA: Amino Acids:
Proteins:
Chemical Evolution: __________________________________________________________________
Homochirality and Abiogenesis:
_________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
The physics of entropy and abiogenesis:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Genetic "code" and formation:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Also of interest:
__________________________________________________________________

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #2

Post by Neatras »


marke
Sage
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Abiogenesis, Hypothesis and Evidence of:

Post #3

Post by marke »

Neatras wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:55 pm (All information below is shamelessly stolen from this well-researched reddit post, a kind of repository for our current evidence. Any additions would be appreciated, but I think a list like this makes its statement quite well enough already.)

Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, it is currently our best idea as to how life originated given the current evidence. Some say it contradicts the "law(very loosely named)" of biogenesis, but it doesn't. Biogenesis disproves the archaic idea that full formed modern lifeforms like maggots and and mice magically arise from inanimate matter like rotting corpses and dirty laundry. By contrast abiogenesis suggest that early life arose from complex chemical reactions and self replicating molecular compounds and structures. But is there any evidence for such an event? Yes:
__________________________________________________________________
Early Earth Chemistry:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
What we have observed:
__________________________________________________________________ Expanded info: __________________________________________________________________
Experimental Data:
__________________________________________________________________
RNA: Amino Acids:
Proteins:
Chemical Evolution: __________________________________________________________________
Homochirality and Abiogenesis:
_________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
The physics of entropy and abiogenesis:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Genetic "code" and formation:
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Also of interest:
__________________________________________________________________
The bare facts, data, and evidence do not suggest abiogenesis was the cause of the formation of original life on earth, but evolutionists wrongly claim their interpretations and assumptions about the data is proof that abiogenseis is a scientific fact.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 747 times

Re: Abiogenesis, Hypothesis and Evidence of:

Post #4

Post by The Barbarian »

marke wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2025 2:47 am The bare facts, data, and evidence do not suggest abiogenesis was the cause of the formation of original life on earth, but evolutionists wrongly claim their interpretations and assumptions about the data is proof that abiogenseis is a scientific fact.
As we get more and more information about the way life began on the early earth, scientists are increasingly agreeing that (as God already tells us) life was brought forth by the Earth. It's nice to see that the evidence agrees with Him, but how could it not?

BTW, it's not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin suggested that God might have just created the first living things.

marke
Sage
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Abiogenesis, Hypothesis and Evidence of:

Post #5

Post by marke »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 26, 2025 4:15 pm
marke wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2025 2:47 am The bare facts, data, and evidence do not suggest abiogenesis was the cause of the formation of original life on earth, but evolutionists wrongly claim their interpretations and assumptions about the data is proof that abiogenseis is a scientific fact.
As we get more and more information about the way life began on the early earth, scientists are increasingly agreeing that (as God already tells us) life was brought forth by the Earth. It's nice to see that the evidence agrees with Him, but how could it not?

BTW, it's not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin suggested that God might have just created the first living things.
Marke: Miller and Urey proved that the earth could not have created life apart from His creation of all things during the week of creation.

Post Reply