Luc Turpin

Abiogenesis isn’t just an abstract concept; it’s a specific area of scientific study focused on understanding how life might have emerged from non-living matter. Criticisms of abiogenesis aren’t attacks on science, but an acknowledgment that we still lack a clear, well-supported explanation for how life began. Comparing it to the formation of the solar system isn’t valid, as the origin of life remains unresolved, while the solar system’s origins are better understood. When I mention "proof," I mean the need for evidence—evidence that builds over time, refining or strengthening theories while remaining open to revision. My concerns about the lack of evidence highlight gaps in our understanding, not an attack on science itself. Science doesn’t seek absolute proof, but there is still no universally accepted theory explaining how life emerged from non-living material, and the existing models have significant gaps. The central question remains: How did simple molecules evolve into complex, self-replicating systems? Many models suggest a gradual process, but they still need to explain how non-living molecules could form living systems. No model has yet provided a comprehensive pathway from simple molecules to living organisms. Furthermore, life forms that blur the boundary between life and non-life highlight the need for a clearer definition of life, without diverting from the core issues of abiogenesis. Regarding the claim that my questions echo creationism, I want to clarify that questioning abiogenesis theories is not rejecting science; it’s acknowledging the significant gaps in our understanding. Ultimately, while I don’t see abiogenesis as an "unsolvable mystery," I do view it as a major scientific challenge—one that requires more research, new ideas, and continued refinement of existing models.

Before deciding if a discussion is pointless, there actually needs to be a discussion in the first place—which isn’t happening right now.

Respectfully, my position—and the points I’ve raised—have no connection to creationism. These points are based on a general consensus provided by those aware of or studying abiogenesis. None of it is creationism. You’re right. I think that I should have used the term "model" instead. Nonetheless, they are still challenges to abiogenesis. My intention was to list the issues, not to imply they are insurmountable. I even mentioned that they don’t disprove abiogenesis. As I mentioned earlier, all of the points have nothing to do with creationism, just chalenges noted in the field of abiogenesis. I’m not trying to lecture anyone about good science; science is good. I’m simply trying to have a constructive discussion about potential issues in science. It is happening! Those in quantum biology and proponents of the holographic principle are actually doing this.

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis: Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent? Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life. In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

We seem to be talking past each other, both bringing preconceived notions to the table. As such, I’ll respectfully decline your offer to continue this discussion unless I have something concrete to contribute as you say. I believe I’ve made meaningful points at times, but it seems that my contributions have been misunderstood or dismissed as meaningless waffle, without being properly considered.

Not about validation, but about sharing! Most of the time, I’m wrong, but every now and then, I’m right!

Labeling individuals only contributes to a "me versus you" mentality that impedes meaningful conversation. Ultimately, we are all on this journey of life together, and we will all face the inevitable end. This shared reality should encourage mutual respect, not division. Overconfidence in science is not a strength but a weakness of character. While science has made significant strides in understanding life—focusing on cellular processes, genetics, and other aspects—it has yet to answer some of the most fundamental questions. Specifically, how life emerges from matter or how a collection of cells generates consciousness remain unresolved. In these areas, I contend, science may be approaching its limits, due in part to its current way of expressing itself. Furthermore, the relationship between life and consciousness is complex, and understanding one may shed light on the other. Dismissing their interconnection could slow our progress. Coming bach to abiogensis, the absence of a unified model on this matter may not be merely due to complexity or time, but could point to something fundamental we have yet to grasp. This is why, I believe, that scientists are exploring diverse avenues of inquiry. This assertion of a possible something else needs to be investigated before being outright ignored. Isn't questioning an integral part of science? Metaphysical concerns are often unfairly dismissed as distractions, but they raise legitimate questions about the limits of scientific inquiry. While science has made impressive advances, it is reasonable to ask whether some aspects of life or consciousness lie beyond its explanatory reach. This should not be trivialized as a "metaphysical bees in your bonnet." Philosophical discussions about the nature of explanation and the limits of scientific knowledge are essential and should not be dismissed with catchphrases. Ignoring metaphysical concerns overlooks the complexity of epistemological debates on what can and cannot be known. Not all critics of current scientific models of life’s origin are invoking religious or supernatural explanations. Many question the gaps and limitations in our current understanding. Unfortunately, views that challenge scientific orthodoxy are too often dismissed as creationist or anti-science, which oversimplifies the issue. Such dismissals ignore the nuanced perspectives of those advocating for a more expansive view of science. For instance, science, by its nature, does not address subjective experience, yet it often claims a comprehensive understanding of reality—an assertion that seems problematic. In conclusion, someone outside conventional scientific paradigms may see things that those within the system might overlook. Science should be conducted with an open, reflective, and humble mindset.

Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness.

You are right! I was not attentive and precise in my meaning. You are wrong! I am not a creationist.

The goal of abiogenesis research is not to create life, but rather to understand how life could have emerged from non-living matter. While various approaches represent complementary pieces of the puzzle rather than failed alternatives, this does not diminish the challenge of integrating them into a coherent model of abiogenesis. The fact remains that we still do not fully understand how life originated from matter. Regarding information transfer in terms of coherence or entanglement, it's about how particles can influence each other, affecting the outcome of chemical reactions. I am not an expert in this field, so I will refrain from delving deeper beyond my understanding of the research I've read. As for the holographic principle, it proposes that the universe might be described by information encoded in a two-dimensional surface, if I am correct. Thank you for the discussion.

I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them. We’ve examined various approaches to understanding abiogenesis: experiments with primordial soup, prebiotic chemistry such as the RNA world, self-replicating molecules, lipid membranes, and computational models designed to accelerate the evolutionary process. Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter. When it comes to quantum processes and their potential role in abiogenesis, my reading suggests that quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions while coherence might speed up these reactions. additionnaly, the holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe. I’m not a chemistry expert like you, but I’m starting to get a bit frustrated with the accusations.

I am more into processes for answers, than God did it!

I did not suggest that there is a clear dividing line between chemistry and quantum processes. To understand the process of life, we now need to be looking beyond traditional chemical reactions. That’s the point I’m making—not that the two processes are separate, but that "more" is needed to understand life. I don’t need to provide evidence for concepts like superposition, entanglement, or tunneling, as I’m not defending quantum biology. My point is simply that quantum biology is an active area of debate when it comes to the origin of life from non-living matter. Similarly, I’m not claiming that the holographic principle is necessarily involved in life’s origins, but rather that some researchers believe it might be. I’d encourage you to look into the principle further before dismissing it as “quantum woo.” Ultimately, my point is not to argue that the answer lies in chemicals, atoms, or information, but rather that the search for life’s origins has expanded because the transition from matter to life is more complex than initially anticipated. I was discussing spirituality before the conversation veered off course. I’m not hiding behind quantum theory, as I don’t believe the answer necessarily lies there. In fact, I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time.

Yes, quantum mechanics certainly influences biochemical processes, but quantum biology might be providing new insights into the mechanisms of life at the molecular and atomic levels. To explain the emergence of life from non-living matter, it could be that it is no longer enough to focus solely on chemical reactions; we may also need to consider processes at the atomic and quantum levels. To me, this represents a significant shift in at least where we are searching for answers. However, there’s no guarantee that the solution lies exclusively in either chemical or atomic explanations. Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level. The question of how life arises from non-living matter remains an active area of research, and the scope of this search has broadened. Explaining life purely through chemistry appears increasingly insufficient; it seems that "something else" or "something more" (jury still out on this one) is required to fully uncover this fundamental mystery. That was the point that I was trying to make. I might also add that we are getting further and further away from the original religious intention of this thread.

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life.

Substantiate

You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors. Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline.

If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap.

The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative. I beg to differ, the text is not preaching, but rather an expression of an opinion about the nature of scientific inquiry. I am not imparting a moral or doctrinal message. I am just conveying what reputable scientists have said about understanding reality. I am trying to share a perspective. I wouldn’t call myself intellectually lazy, though I may not be the sharpest, as I honestly don’t know where to begin with this.

Yup! And you complain about the internet age!

I agree, but that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting. Taking several days to prepare a single post is not lazy. Accompanying citations with arguments is not fallacious. I maintain that most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to understand how the world works, whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged in science is a matter for debate. When looking at science across various fields, it’s evident that we are making significant progress in deepening our understanding of the world. I’m not suggesting that our comprehension is complete, but that it is an ongoing process. Discovery is crucial, but without a general sense of intent, it becomes data without much meaning. The heart, lungs, and cells are undeniably alive, but proteins, despite being essential for bodily functions, are not considered "alive." Life is intricately linked to the body; more precicely to cells in the body. The question of how inert matter transforms into living cells remains unresolved, leaving us with two possibilities: either we have not yet uncovered the full mechanism, or there is something beyond our current scientific understanding that we have yet to identify. What this missing something might be remains unknown and speculative.

Using quotations to support an argument is a valid approach. However, you have extracted a single element from the broader context I’ve been presenting across several posts. That said, I acknowledge that I could have articulated my point more clearly. I maintain that the search for universal laws, among other things, is an integral part of understanding reality.

Science is partly rooted in skepticism, yes, but it should not be adversarial. Adversarial approaches often devolve into emotion rather than reasoned debate.

I do not contest the validity of your statement. However, are we merely seeking a conceptual fit to nature, or is science also attempting to explore and address the deeper questions of nature? To me, this equates to striving for a deeper understanding of reality. Many prominent scientists speak of "understanding" reality, and some even suggest that science plays a role in "shaping" it. That said, I acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted their ideas. Biology 101: "Once ingested, food is broken down by the digestive system into nutrients, such as proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals. These nutrients are then absorbed and used by the body to support various biological processes like energy production, cell growth, and tissue repair." However, I have not encountered any mention that the food itself becomes "alive" within the body. That said, my main contention remains: non-living matter turning into living matter has not yet been demonstrated without the involvement of living organisms. Does this mean it is impossible? No, it does not. But the statement remains valid. Yes, I am referring to abiogenesis. While we have not directly observed the Big Bang, we have compelling evidence supporting its occurrence. The lack of direct observation does not invalidate the theory; it simply makes it more open to scrutiny. Similarly, the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter turns into living organisms, without the presence of pre-existing life at the transition, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis. It merely makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. I am not admonishing myself nor the OP, but long-term members have also contributed to making this science forum less welcoming through disrespectful behavior and pigeonholing some of us, often with the intent of fostering and maintaining an adversarial tone. The current environment is not conducive to rational discussion and frequently devolves into insinuations and outright hostility.