Talk:Abiogenesis
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
Misleading
"However, in all of these experiments that attempted to produce life's building blocks, molecular oxygen was absent. The earth possesses an oxygen rich atmosphere, and even the oldest rocks contain oxides which is evidence they were formed in the presence of oxygen."
Misleading - the earth possesses an oxygen rich atmosphere now, but there are indications it did not always do so. The oldest rocks do contain evidence they were formed in the presence of oxygen, but that evidence - in the form of oxides that are not forming in rocks today - shows that they were not formed in an oxygen rich atmosphere.
Criticising these experiments for attempting to emulate prebiotic atmospheres rather than using current atmospheric proportions is unfair.
- Could you perhaps give an example of these rocks which don't show any oxides? Scorpionman 22:23, 6 February 2007 (EST)
"Spontaneous generation was the original theory that proposed life could originate from nonliving matter."
It's worth mentioning that the theory that Pasteur refuted involved the spontaneous generation of modern life-forms from non-living matter, e.g. maggots in meat or mice in solied linen, and hence is completely unrelated to recent abiogenesis research.
Hubert P. Yockey
It would also be nice to show what evolutionist Hubert Yockey says about abiogenesis. The following are posts that I have posted on evowiki :
The following is copied from wikipedia: Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.) In a book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm: Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8). It should be noted that Yockey, in general, possesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life, often invoking words like "faith" and "ideology". Yockey's publications have become favorites to quote among creationists, though he is not a creationist himself (as noted in this 1995 email[1] (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0125.html)).
I recently emailed Yockey and asked him to give an example of one failure of the primordial soup aside from the complete lack of evidence, Yockey responded with the following:
"To: Daniel  photek_8_@hotmail.com From: Hubert P Yockey  hpyockey@AOL.com Subject: Primordial soup? Dear Daniel: The primordial soup was suggested by Haeckel in 1866, not by Oparin who was not born then. Louis Pasteur in 1822 showed that all life is of one handedness. The primeval soup would have been racemic. The sulfur bearing amino acids methionine and cysteine do not appear in spark discharge experiments. Finally, and most important, no genetic code exists between proteins and RNA and DNA. This is the Central Dogma. Therfore the origin of life by “proteins first†is impossible, not just unlikely.
All these matters and many more are discussed in my book: Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. It may be ordered from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or from your local book store.
Thank you for your interest in my book.
Sincerely Hubert P. Yockey" PhoteK 19:47, 30 Jun 2005 (GMT)
- Ooh, that's just sick and biased!! Scorpionman 20:32, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
