Sentences with word «abiogenesis»

For reasons like these, the RNA world hypothesis has been largely abandoned by proponents of abiogenesis in favor of other hypotheses, like the simultaneous development of both proteins and genetic templates or the development of life around undersea vents similar to those currently inhabited by today's extremophiles.

Stop equating evolution with abiogenesis or atheism.

While we do have evidence to support different abiogenesis theories, there has not been enough verifiable evidence to confirm the hypothesis.

Saying that I don't believe in gods doesn't mean that I believe in the big bang theory or that I've a hypothesis about abiogenesis.

So because we don't exactly know how abiogenesis occurred on our planet then «a wizard did it»?

Discounting evolution becuase it does not explain abiogenesis is like discounting the belief gases because it does not predict the weather.

Jim, if you do believe in Abiogenesis «Your entire world view is based on an obvious work of fiction and you have been duped and self deluded enough to believe it.»

When the light of science finally shines a light on abiogenesis — will your god become unemployed?

And even despite the fact that no one knows to a 100 % degree of certainty how abiogenesis happened... all of the chemical and scientific theories are still vastly more likely to be true than the other answer proposed, which boils down to «magic.»

Despite the promising results, nobody should ever confuse abiogenesis with evolutionary theory.

In 1864, Louis Pasteur proved that point in one case, showing that spontaneous generation (that life could originate from nonliving matter, also called abiogenesis), though accepted by some in the scientific community (such as Belgian chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont about 200 years earlier, who also believed that the basic elements of the universe was just air and water), was untrue.

Capitalist — the fact that you would confuse terrestrial abiogenesis with the big bang is fvcking laughable.

Evolution theory is based on a set of assumptions, among those that abiogenesis occurred at some point; that life came from non-life.

After spending years studying quantum physics what causes me the most side splitting rounds of laughter is when someone with no foundation attempts to explain «life» in terms of abiogenesis dealing strictly with already complex atomic structure.

btw the Miller - Urey experiment showed that life can come from something non-living although it is not accepted as the actual abiogenesis explanation.

You don't even have the slightest clue as to how abiogenesis works or what the mechanics are for evolution.

PRAISE BE TO ABIOGENESIS!!!

They are really debating abiogenesis.

The extreme mathematical improbability of random abiogenesis has also been explained.

It is not intended to offer insights into abiogenesis or the origin of life.

Critics of abiogenesis say that simply isn't enough time for inorganic matter to become the theorized precellular life.

Jerry Bergman from Why Abiogenesis is Impossible.

Or does the scientific community really believe that they have proven abiogenesis to be a fact?

So my point was more about creationism vs abiogenesis.

Life from non-life Abiogenesis is what you are banking on, yet it never has been proven.

He does not accept abiogenesis.

Just needed to point out that Chad's long quote regarding abiogenesis is far from a complete representation of the science.

I can understand when they get abiogenesis mixed up with evolution — but why the hell do they keep confusing the big bang with evolution?

You are talking about abiogenesis, which is not contained in the theory of evolution.

As opposed to ID / creationism, there is mechanistic evidence supporting plausible routes for abiogenesis.

Physics does a great job describing accretion, as well as origin of our solar system, but past that, it becomes the chemist and biochemist jobs to explain abiogenesis.

At this time no one knows with any certainty as to how abiogenesis happened, but you may feel it was god, but I would imagine that at some time in the future science will have a working hypothesis.it most likely does already I am am not sure.

Evolution tells us how we evolved from the first cell It does not tell us what caused that first cell that is called abiogenesis The creation of the universe has many working hypotheses but no one is sure at this time which one is correct or even if they will lead to the answer.

Jim, Do you believe in Abiogenesis?

Evolution does NOT answer the question of abiogenesis, moron.

You confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution and your question regarding millions of different «humans» is equally silly.

Evolution is, but abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

In every class I've taken, abiogenesis is taught as a hypothesis.

(not repeatable and has not been observed)» Parts of abiogenesis have been duplicated in a lab, but alas its still a work in progress.

The theory that deals with how life arose from inorganic materials is «abiogenesis».

A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.