1770 Shares

Do you believe that abiogenesis is how a living cell came to be?

Do you believe that abiogenesis is how a living cell came to be? Topic: Synthesising elements of design
June 25, 2019 / By Emery
Question: Do you believe a self-replicating system came into existence through random interaction of chemical elements? To Eddie: so how come that even scientists like Dawkins do not embrace it anymore? Dawkins clearly said no one knows how life started, but most likely from outer space.... If the reaction were not random, are you saying there was a "design", a sort of a force driving them? "more primitive precursors"...... than a single-cell organism? such as? "there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity." this is true, but in the beginning at the soup stage there were NO proteins.... "a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection" and how does a molecule is "approximately self-replicating"? did you think this through? Dawkins: yes, the interview he had with Ben Stein. Look it up on Youtube. As for the rest, my God does not need abiogenesis, which is chemically impossible, anyway, to create a man, let alone a cell. No, I can actually support my statement with scientific papers: “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors” Axe DD, J. Mol. Biol. (2000) 301, 585±595 “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” Axe DD. J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315. “Stylus: a system for evolutionary experimentation based on a protein/proteome model with non-arbitrary functional constraints.” Axe DD, Dixon BW, Lu P.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Do you believe that abiogenesis is how a living cell came to be?

Cliff Cliff | 8 days ago
The origin of biological membranes, like the origin of replication and metabolism, is fraught with problems and invokes extremely improbable chemistry. Although some of the building blocks of potential membranes might have been synthesized on early earth, the ones used in modern biological membranes (phospholipids) could not have been. Therefore, one must hypothesize some kind of primordial membrane that was later discarded in favor of modern membranes. However, even this scenario suffers from insurmountable problems. The use of highly purified chemical in extremely high quantities in origin of life studies is questionable at best. Obviously, such experiments are fundamentally flawed, since no such conditions could have ever existed in any early earth environments. Edit: Saying after billions of years anything can happen is not science!
👍 244 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Do you believe that abiogenesis is how a living cell came to be? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Synthesising elements of design


Cliff Originally Answered: Why does my husband hide an extra cell phone , video tapes, and keys in my living room? I found it while clean?
It sounds like your husband has a very bad track record of secretive behaviors and hiding items from you. Your alarm that is going off is very accurate and should be listened to. Don't over look this any more or make up excuses. Better yet, his excuses or defensiveness can no longer be okay. He obviously has some sort of sexual behaviors that he is not fully disclosing to you, which then has you feeling insecure in the relationship. All of his behaviors are screaming that he is either having a problem with out-of-control sexual behaviors or having an affair. I see these issues over and over in my therapy practice and the relationship needs to have a big turn around to make it salvageable. You now have to make a few decisions here: Decide if you are open to working on the relationship. His behaviors are RED FLAGS and need you to be very aware of what exactly the behaviors are to really evaluate if you want to stay or go. How much is he putting you at risk? What type of sexual acts is he involved in? That being said, he may not tell you the entire truth. Most people who have these type of behaviors often only share a small part of the entire truth. You need to be fully educated on the ins-and-outs of rebuilding trust. Seek out counseling to get an expert on this arena. If you still want the relationship (with or without the full information), you will need to address this issue straight on. In order to stop, you may have a list of hoops that he needs to jump through to have you even consider rebuilding trust or staying. Write a list of what you need to know, see, hear, etc. What behaviors would you need to see that would help you feel safe? Would you need to see him wearing his wedding ring, get rid of his cell phone, see a therapist, attend Sex Addicts Annonymous (if he is addicted), show you all his emails, change jobs, etc. If he loves you, he will do what it takes to save the relationship. All of his secretive behaviors will need to stop. He will need to jump through any and all hoops to rebuild your trust. Once again, I suggest meeting with a trained therapist to explore exactly what you need to see to even consider rebuilding trust and seeking help for him. That being said, you may to prepare for the worst as well. He may be struggling with something bigger and darker than you could imagine. If you don't know what exactly he is involved in, you may never feel fully comfortable. Most of my clients need to know ALL in order to even consider staying in the relationship. He may not be able to do it. He may be fearful of sharing all the dark dark secrets. Or better yet, he may be on his way out of the relationship. Somethings you may want to be aware of: You may have a blender full of emotions, feeling anxious, devastation, overwhelmed, angered, sadness, depression, etc. Make sure to seek out support to help you sort through it all. I like to call this time as the mind may feel very chaotic or in a "fog." Reach for friends and family for support. Please know that my heart aches for you. Hang in there and good luck.

Andy Andy
the comprehensive concept of abiogenesis is purely as amazing and God turning out to be human beings. it easily relies upon on your recommendations-set. i'm a non secular guy or woman and decide to have faith in God. i've got faith the information for creationism is a lot extra ideal than information for abiogensis and evolution. The Bible explains why we are right here. Why stable human beings go through. What God has planned for the earth. It additionally provides desire for the destiny. unlike abiogenesis and evolution. To me all existence is a lot too complicated to have purely got here approximately. At what element in abiogenesis did those existence varieties improve sufficient to procreate? How and why might they improve the skill to procreate? Even the least difficult of cells are complicated. If existence began from no longer something why does not it proceed to take action? There are too many unanswered inquiries to the comprehensive abiogenesis concept for me to have faith. in spite of if i had to yet i do no longer. no longer each and every person is a non secular guy or woman and that's ok. The Bible says that maximum individuals won't income eternal existence in spite of in the event that they do have faith in God.
👍 100 | 👎 7

Toya Toya
Unless cells have always existed, at some point they must have formed from non-cellular precursors. That’s abiogenesis. You’re religion doesn’t deny that. All scientists are doing is attempting to find out how abiogenesis happened - just like they found out how stars formed and ignited from pre-existing non-stellar matter. Do you find the theory of stellar formation threatening to your faith? Does it seem wrong to you that the sun and stars formed by natural means despite the claim in Genesis 1:16 that God created them on the fourth day? If not – if you instead decide that God used natural means to create stars – then why should it bother you that God may have used natural means to create cells? And if God used natural means, why should it bother you that science is looking into what those means might have been? > "Dawkins clearly said no one knows how life started, but most likely from outer space" I don't think he actually said that. Do you have a source? > “Dawkins: yes, the interview he had with Ben Stein. Look it up on Youtube” Dawkins did not say that life most likely came from outer space in that interview. He said life *could conceivably* have been seeded on earth by an alien intelligence. The point he was trying to make was that even given such a highly unlikely scenario, that still wouldn’t explain the ultimate origin of life. Life is complex, and one does not explain complexity by resorting to more complexity. Ultimately complexity is always explained by the interaction of less complex structures and forces. > “If the reaction were not random, are you saying there was a "design", a sort of a force driving them?” There was a force involved – that of electromagnetic attraction and repulsion between valence electrons in atoms and molecules. The existence of a force does not imply design. Compare stellar formation again: In that case a force (gravity) causes matter to coalesce and compress until hydrogen atoms fuse and energy locked up by another force (strong nuclear) is released. The process proceeds naturally under the right circumstances, and is not random, but there is no evidence it proceeds by design. Stellar formation is just one of thousands of examples of complex structures developing by steps from the interactions of simpler precursors and forces. Other examples include snowflakes, river deltas, varves, and people. You can, if you want, presume that God personally designs each and every snowflake. But then you have to ask why he would be so inefficient when he could instead have simply brought about the means by which they could form naturally. You’d also have to explain why, if God takes such a personal hand in every little detail of complex existence, do we have things like statues of Jesus destroyed by lightning bolts, or busloads of kids plunging over cliffs. > “As for the rest, my God does not need abiogenesis, which is chemically impossible, anyway, to create a man, let alone a cell.” No one suggested (or cares whether) your God *needs* to create cells or men using natural means. No one suggested your God *needs* to create stars by natural means either. The point is that there is growing evidence to indicate that cells *were* first produced by natural means, and we are working out what those means were. We have already worked out the natural means by which stars and men were produced. Your statement that abiogenesis is chemically impossible is not something you can support, and I challenge you to do so.
👍 93 | 👎 6

Sable Sable
Scientists do not claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. Atoms & molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly but according to their chemical properties. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self replicating object did not need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA.
👍 86 | 👎 5

Nessie Nessie
Creationists like to say the proteins for life are very complex and the odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113. Well the calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecules formed by chance. However biochemistry is not by chance, making their calculated odds useless. Biochemistry produces complex products and the products themselves interact in different ways. For example complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible they played a role in the first life The calculation of odds assumes that protein molecule must take one certain form. However there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity.
👍 79 | 👎 4

Lucy Lucy
Even if life came from outer space, the passing of Nibiru is one likely candidate, life still had to for from something. If it did come from Nibiru then it could be a gestation process billions of years longer than the 4.5 billion we think the Earth is. Miller proved that amino acids "could" form from inorganic materials. There may have been a primordial war to determine whether we would have right twist or left twist amino acids. Right hand won. Miller could have created right hand twist, just give him a millennia or 2. Gaia had 4 billion years to experiment.
👍 72 | 👎 3

Kayla Kayla
consider for example the nucleic acids--the most common nucleic acid can be catalyzed on a alumino silicate substrate (clays) to form rather smoothly from elements common to the primodial earth. Isn't it interesting that the nucleic acid that is most easily formed from chemistry available in the primodial earth is also the most common in living systems. And the list goes on and on and on--considering that there were trillions upon trillions upon trillions of chemical reactions occurring every second for billions of years--the odds of a self replicating molecule occurring become quite probable.
👍 65 | 👎 2

Kayla Originally Answered: Why would you need both a light microscope and an electron microscope to fully understand living cell?
In addition to any correct answer you receive here, I would review the capabilities of each type of microscope, and its specific applications. Your essay will be much enhanced by you presenting that you have a fundamental understanding of the advantages of one microscope technique over the other.

If you have your own answer to the question synthesising elements of design, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.