After arguing about evolution I decided to write here about the theory of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis simply means formation of life from non life. This theory is used in explaining the origin of life. But there are problems with this theory.

1. There is no evidence of life emerging from non life: It is not possible for life to emerge from non life (organic). About 2000 years ago, Aristotle brought a similar theory known as spontaneous generation. That micro organisms could grow from non living. This theory was believed for almost 2000yrs which have truly hampered the development of science for years. Until Louis Pasteur debunked the theory, positing that life come from life (biogenesis)

2. Abiogenesis and Biogenesis cannot both be correct. There is enough evidence for biogenesis but no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, it is a mere speculation.

3. Evidence from chemistry and biochemistry : In chemistry and biochemistry there is no evidence for bio molecules(proteins, CHO) coming together to form a cell or complex biological structures.

But i guess there is evidence for dust turning into man, right?

donnffd:
But i guess there is evidence for dust turning into man, right?

Not clear, but evidence shows that the earth and the human body has similar composition

Your title is misleading

4kings:
Your title is misleading

May be, but abiogenesis is not a strong theory

Kalatium:

Not clear, but evidence shows that the earth and the human body has Thesame composition

Abeg explain.

Kalatium:

May be, but abiogenesis is not a strong theory

I think the word there is "Inconclusive".
That's the beauty of Science

Kalatium:

Not clear, but evidence shows that the earth and the human body has Thesame composition

Just the same way the composition of acts of God and that of terrorists are the same.

Kalatium:
After arguing about evolution I decided to write here about the theory of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis simply means formation of life from non life. This theory is used in explaining the origin of life. But there are problems with this theory.
1. There is no evidence of life emerging from non life: It is not possible for life to emerge from non life (organic). About 2000 years ago, Aristotle brought a similar theory known as spontaneous generation. That micro organisms could grow from non living . This theory was believed for almost 2000yrs which have truly hampered the development of science for years. Until Louis Pasteur debunked the theory, positing that life come from life (biogenesis)

2. Abiogenesis and Biogenesis cannot both be correct. There is enough evidence for biogenesis but no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, it is a mere speculation.

3. Evidence from chemistry and biochemistry : In chemistry and biochemistry there is no evidence for bio molecules(proteins, CHO) coming together to form a cell or complex biological structures.

The site you are copying and pasting from are being very dishonest. Abiogenesis does not state that micro organism could grow out of non organic matter, that is the theory of spontaneous generation. There is a difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.
Louis Pasteur was only able to prove that complex living things can only come other living things through reproduction, he never delved into how life first started on earth. He simply proved that maggots were not created by the bread they came out of.

Whatever side of the fence you stand, you must accept abiogenesis, either you accept that simple inorganic compounds combined to make the first simple organic compounds which went on to combine to make the first simple life ( RNA and DNA) or you believe that simple inorganic clay was magically turned into complex organic life form ( man). The original materials were organic.

Abiogenesis is not well supported with evidence, I have read about abiogenesis but am not satisfied

wirinet:


The site you are copying and pasting from are being very dishonest. Abiogenesis does not state that micro organism could grow out of non organic matter, that is the theory of spontaneous generation. There is a difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.
Louis Pasteur was only able to prove that complex living things can only come other living things through reproduction, he never delved into how life first started on earth. He simply proved that maggots were not created by the bread they came out of.

Whatever side of the fence you stand, you must accept abiogenesis either you accept that simple inorganic compounds combined to make the first simple organic compounds which went on to combine to make the first simple life ( RNA and DNA) or you believe that simple inorganic clay was magically turned into complex organic life form ( man). The original materials were organic.

1. Is it by force to accept abiogenesis? (the bolded)

2.You misunderstood me. I didn't say abiogenesis refers to micro organism growing out of non organic Matter,but referring to spontaneous generation. There are indeed differences between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation just trying to show similarities.

Abiogenesis really lacks evidence, since no one was there when life began, we expect synthesis of life from inorganic compounds in a lab or so to prove it.

the op sha

PRIMORDIAL SOUP HYPOTHESIS
Primordial soup hypothesis contradicts biogenesis so scientists have to modify the biogenetic theory.
No new notable research or theory on the subject appeared until 1924, when Alexander Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his book The Origin of Life, Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early Earth had changed, and preexisting organisms would immediately consume any spontaneously generated organism. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygenless atmosphere through the action of sunlight . These would combine in ever more complex ways until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would " grow" by fusion with other droplets, and " reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which factors that promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point.
Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane in its "mature form" as follows: [78]
1. The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere .
2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds (" monomers ".
3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup" that may have concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
4. By further transformation, more complex organic
polymers - and ultimately life - developed in the soup.

Kalatium:

Not clear, but evidence shows that the earth and the human body has Thesame composition

No, this is not true. The earth is very rich in silicon (in the form of silica and silicates) which is essentially not present in the human body. The misconception that man is made from dust is understandable if we accept that the story was written by a man who didn't know any science.

Seun:

No, this is not true. The earth is very rich in silicon (in the form of silica and silicates) which is essentially not present in the human body.

I don't mean every element, but you can testify that most element are similar like oxygen, iron etc

Seun:

No, this is not true. The earth is very rich in silicon (in the form of silica and silicates) which is essentially not present in the human body. The misconception that man is made from dust is understandable if we accept that the story was written by a man who didn't know any science.

Seun:

No, this is not true. The earth is very rich in silicon (in the form of silica and silicates) which is essentially not present in the human body. The misconception that man is made from dust is understandable if we accept that the story was written by a man who didn't know any science.

Any science?

akintom:


Just the same way the composition of acts of God and that of terrorists are the same.

No one is talking about God here, this is a digression from the topic

WORLDPEACE:

Any science?

The origin of science begins with the origin of man, It's jst that the ancients don't have knowledge as modern science.

Kalatium:
I don't mean every element, but you can testify that most element are similar like oxygen, iron etc

Silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth's crust and only 0.002% of the human body.
Aluminium makes up 8.1% of the earth's crust and only 0.000087% of the human body.
Iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and only 0.006% of the human body.
Oxygen is the closest, at 48% in soil to 65% in our bodies, but everything else is completely different.
If we were made of soil, our bodies would contain every element present in soil in similar proportions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list

The people who wrote the bible must have noticed that dead bodies tend to disappear over time when they are buried in soil, and inferred that they must have turned into soil, and so they must have been made from soil. If God existed, he would have known that this is not true.

Its funny how every tom, dick and harry think they can just write DEBUNKED next to a scientifically established theory that has been studied for decades and claim they are right. If it's debunked as you say, you should submit your findings to the scientific community, and also provide an alternative to it.
Believing in the bible as a source of scientific truth will get humans no where.

Seun:

Silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth's crust and only 0.002% of the human body.
Aluminium makes up 8.1% of the earth's crust and only 0.000087% of the human body.
Iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and only 0.006% of the human body.
The idea our bodies being made from the dust of the earth is ludicrous.

Sources:
http://www.space.com/17777-what-is-earth-made-of.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list


The people who wrote the bible must have noticed that dead bodies tend to disappear when they are buried in soil, and inferred that they must have turned into soil, and so they must have been made from soil. If God existed, he would have known that this was completely wrong.

You are making a point, but they may be right because how sure are we that they are wrong

UNTIL NOW, ABIOGENESIS IS INCONCLUSIVE

As of 2016, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. However, scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share some common elements. While differing in the details, these theories are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. [85] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order". [85] Oparin and Haldane suggested that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), water (H 2O), hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), carbon dioxide (CO 2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO 4 3− ), with molecular oxygen (O 2) and ozone (O 3 ) either rare or absent. According to later models, the atmosphere in the late Hadean period consisted largely of nitrogen (N 2) and carbon dioxide, with smaller amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrogen (H 2), and sulfur compounds; [86] while it did lack molecular oxygen and ozone, [87] it was not as chemically reducing as Oparin and Haldane supposed. In the atmosphere proposed by Oparin and Haldane, electrical activity can produce certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. The Miller–Urey experiment reported in 1953 demonstrated this.
Bernal coined the term biopoiesis in 1949 to refer to the origin of life. In 1967, he suggested that it occurred in three "stages":
1. the origin of biological monomers
2. the origin of biological polymers
3. the evolution from molecules to cells

But this stages cannot be successfully proven

Seun:

Silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth's crust and only 0.002% of the human body.
Aluminium makes up 8.1% of the earth's crust and only 0.000087% of the human body.
Iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and only 0.006% of the human body.

The idea our bodies being made from the dust of the earth is ludicrous.

Sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=composition+of+earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list

The people who wrote the bible must have noticed that dead bodies tend to disappear when they are buried in soil, and inferred that they must have turned into soil, and so they must have been made from soil. If God existed, he would have known that this was completely wrong.

Fredrick Nietzsche.

A hypothesis or theory not well supported should be modified or discarded for a better one. This should lead to a paradigm shift

Who can provide evidence for these stages

1. the origin of biological monomers
2. the origin of biological polymers
3. the evolution from molecules to cells

Seun:

Silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth's crust and only 0.002% of the human body.
Aluminium makes up 8.1% of the earth's crust and only 0.000087% of the human body.
Iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and only 0.006% of the human body.
The idea our bodies being made from the dust of the earth is ludicrous.

Sources:
http://www.space.com/17777-what-is-earth-made-of.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list

The people who wrote the bible must have noticed that dead bodies tend to disappear when they are buried in soil, and inferred that they must have turned into soil, and so they must have been made from soil. If God existed, he would have known that this was completely wrong.

Bro if you haven't experience the power of God, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I've gone to a big church where the pastor describe who I am, what I dreamt of the previous night, the negative situation dat was going on in my life; I thoughtearv I was dreaming. After coming out from where I was sitting, he also prophesied some future events dat will happen in my life; believe it or not all his prophesies came to pass the exact day and peroid he said it'll happen. So you better stop criticizing the bible or calling the writers liars; the bible is the word of God, the word of God speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.

Don't you think the olding days people are mysterious ? If we're really very very intelligent and brighter and
clearver and more reasonsble than them, then y are we still wondering about the 7 wonders of the world ?

Bro go and browse and make research about the Ten Commandments that was found in Space.

It is true that scientists have not figured out how life could come from nonliving matter. This doesn't invalidate evolution. Enlightened religious people believe that God set the process in motion by creating the first life form and left the rest to evolution, which is a much better view.

Seun:

Silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth's crust and only 0.002% of the human body.
Aluminium makes up 8.1% of the earth's crust and only 0.000087% of the human body.
Iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and only 0.006% of the human body.

The idea our bodies being made from the dust of the earth is ludicrous.

Sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=composition+of+earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list

The people who wrote the bible must have noticed that dead bodies tend to disappear when they are buried in soil, and inferred that they must have turned into soil, and so they must have been made from soil. If God existed, he would have known that this was completely wrong.

God creating man from dust can be viewed as literal or allegorical .

(i)When viewed literally :

In Genesis 2:7 , the Hebrew word for dust is aphar which means earth , clay , mud, ground, mortar etc .This means that man was created with some earth's composition . So obviously , the use of the word dust is just representing an aggregation of possible earth compositions used to create man . The bible is not a science book .

(ii)When viewed allegorically . According to Matthew Henry , an 18th century Bible scholar :

As man was made out of the earth, so he is maintained and supported by that which cometh out of the earth [minerals, nutrients, water]. Take away that, and his body [will cease] returns to its earth. . . . [T]he souls of men dwell in houses of clay: such the bodies of men are . . . an earthen vessel, soon broken, as it was first formed, according to the good pleasure of the potter 12 As light was the beginning of the first creation; so . . . in the new creation, the illumination [light] of the Spirit is His first work upon the soul.

There are Christians viewing the bible with vast perspectives and sticking to only one perspective and not fully knowledgeable of it is rather ...

Lennycool:
Its funny how every tom, dick and harry think they can just write DEBUNKED next to a scientifically established theory that has been studied for decades and claim they are right. If it's debunked as you say, you should submit your findings to the scientific community, and also provide an alternative to it.
Believing in the bible as a source of scientific truth will get humans no where.

I didn't challenge theories of gravity, plate tectonics, Germ theory etc because they are well established. But as for abiogenesis, it is not well supported. Many hypothesis are deduced to explain it like biogeochemistry, pangenesis etc but still this theories lack evidence.

I am looking forward to summiting my findings to scientific community.

wirinet:

Abeg explain.

Elements like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc found in human body is also found in the soil.

Seun:
It is true that scientists have not figured out how life could come from nonliving matter. This doesn't invalidate evolution. Enlightened religious people believe that God set the process in motion by creating the first life form and left the rest to evolution, which is a much better view.

I am not talking about evolution I'm talking about abiogenesis.