How life began?

(Иван Громов) #1

Hi all! Cell is a very complex system, especially DNA and RNA, for example Antony Flew saw Hand Of God in DNA . What is the law God has established that life arose?
God Bless!

(George Brooks) #2


Some BioLogos supporters might easily allow for The Beginning of life to be accomplished by Yahweh. Such a position is well within the limits of what BioLogos proposes.

And then, here and there, as life continues to evolve, Yahweh might make some special non-lawful interventions … or he may have designed a Creation so complex and well-defined, that all his interventions are simply less common examples of normal lawful behavior.

So… what exactly do you mean by the sentence: “What is the law God has established that life arose?”

(Иван Громов) #3

i want know about abiogenesis :slight_smile:

(Mervin Bitikofer) #4

Most here who are experts in various aspects of evolution are using the term [evolution] to refer to the common descent of all living organisms from some few or one living thing of the distant past, and they are defending it as such, pointing out that abiogenesis is a whole different ball-game. But there has been some contention in these forums that ‘Evolution’ necessarily refers to a wider philosophical approach to how all things came about in the cosmos and including the first life. Most of the ink spilled around here is with regard to the evidence for the more “modest” claim of evolution that addresses common descent with modification from pre-existent life-forms. Much less is known or scientifically defended about abiogenesis; i.e. that is more of a ‘frontier territory’ as Dennis Venema speaks of it here in a blog-post that might address some of your questions.

You can find other blogs around that topic or word by putting it into the search box at the home page like I just did. Venema’s article was one of the top hits but there were others. Venema is good and highly recommended around here, but don’t go in expecting that abiogenesis has some sort of widely accepted physical explanation. It’s more into speculative (even if some more informed and other less informed) territory. The only confident assertions around it usually come from those who have a religious or anti-religious ax to grind. Those most “in-the-know” scientifically seem to be speaking with much less confidence about it and despite the excited proclamations of typical headlines over past decades, it probably isn’t “just around the corner” that this puzzle will be solved, if it ever is. I don’t say that as a scientific expert (those who are experts here please correct me as needed) – I say it because there is good reason to be more sober about the typically-optimistic time-lines of excited science enthusiasts.

Why the opposition to ID theory?
(George Brooks) #5

If you want to know about abiogenesis, you have two choices:

I have an appendix listing the required substances for God to make clay, the hypothetical requirement for him to make Adam.


I have the link to the Wikipedia article on the scientific version of Abiogenesis.

You can tell me which makes more sense. ~ George Brooks

Appendix One: God’s Recipe for Humans?
Statistics vary, but if a man’s body is 66% water, then if Adam weighted 185 pounds, when God made Adam out of mud or dust, God would have had to mix about 122 pounds of water (which is about 15 1/4 gallons) with a ratio of other materials much like this formula for “Brick Clay”: Excluding about 5 pounds of water, which should already be counted in the 122 pounds, we would need the following minerals to make up about 57.5 pounds of non-water volume: 20 pounds of silica (sand), 16 pounds of alumina, 9 pounds of quartz, 3 pounds of calcium carbonate, 2 pounds of feldspar, 1 pound of calcium sulfate, 1 pound of ferric oxide (common rust, for the blood?), and a little less than half a pound each of magnesia and alakali.

Appendix Two: The Science of Abiogenesis

(George Brooks) #6

Very nice treatment of the “hard stuff” of Abiogenesis, @Mervin_Bitikofer !!!

(Albert Leo) #7

Mervin, I have a somewhat unusual reason for my interest in abiogenesis. Stanley Miller was a fellow post-grad student at the U. of Chicago, and he chose Harold Urey as his advisor. As you know, their attempt to duplicate the abiotic conditions on early earth gained world wide attention, but more recently they are seen to bear little relationship to what might have actually occurred. I have also followed the work of Orgel, Crick, and Eigen, and my conclusion currently is: God only knows. But I am confident that IF we do find an explanation, it will not remove Him from the picture.
Al Leo

(Mervin Bitikofer) #8

Rampant speculation (and motivated search) are still lively activities around this! You have followed this all more closely than I have, so I should be listening to you regarding any progress.

Amen to your final comment. I just finished visiting with a beleaguered biology teacher (Christian high school), and Abiogenesis was one of the things she brought up. I commiserated some with her about how these concepts all get lumped together into that evil behemoth: Evolution. The delicate dance continues…

(Brad Kramer) #9

3 posts were split to a new topic: Why the opposition to ID theory?

Why the opposition to ID theory?
Why the opposition to ID theory?
(Bill Wald) #10

Any human who claims he can know the mind of God is blowing smoke. God is “totally other.” It is hard enough to understand Jesus.