Sentences with phrase «of abiogenesis»

I don't want to trivialize the problem of abiogenesis, but it's my suspicion that because matter self - organizes in the presence of energy, the phase of matter we call «life» will appear everywhere it's possible, not as a singular event, but continuously across the galaxies.

It is not about origins, but how life changed over time and across generations after it started.The study into the origins of life is the field of abiogenesis.

Life on Earth likely began through a long process of abiogenesis, culminating in unicellular procaryotic bacteria.

Are you making another as - sumption that because the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis has not been proven that your God must be responsible?

@Colin «Life on Earth likely began through a long process of abiogenesis, culminating in unicellular procaryotic bacteria» @Chad «ah..

Actually the process of abiogenesis is quite simple in complexity and is quite easy to understand.

The idea of abiogenesis isn't even a working theory, because no one has ever provided evidence that life can come from something non-living.

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.

eg: «science doesn't explain what happened before the big bang, so God is real, ergo he created everything 6,000 years ago» — Opponents of abiogenesis belong here too.

Whatever the answer to the question of abiogenesis is, I somehow doubt that it'll be magic.

Trouble is, creationists likely wouldn't accept anything less than the creation of a modern cell as evidence of abiogenesis.

That is another theory altogether called the theory of Abiogenesis.

Having examined evidence such as Big Bang cosmology (yup, I'm what you'd call an «old earth» creationist), the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, the problems of abiogenesis, and textual criticism of the Bible, I've found that the Bible describes historical events and other aspects of reality much more plausibly than any other faith system.

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

he question of abiogenesis is a profound one to which we haven't yet discovered any solid answers.

And yes i've heard of Abiogenesis.

And the probability of abiogenesis is 1:1.

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.

Not exact matches

«modern science has not proven anything regarding origins of our existence as we know it» - You are referring to 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.

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

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

He cites it, along with local abiogenesis as two possible theories for the original development of life on Earth.

Evolution is a fact... the «spark of life» as you call it... abiogenesis..

Out in meat space, I think that's how most Christians think of evolution — especially as evolutionary biology makes no assertions in regards to abiogenesis.

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.

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.

Suffice it to say there are many interesting hypotheses and the work continues (search PubMed for «abiogenesis» to read some of the actual peer - reviewed work).

But even if abiogenesis created life, wouldn't there have to be some sort of sentience behind it.

«Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability.

The theory most scientists currently favor for the origins of life is called «abiogenesis,» the gradual emergence of life on Earth from non-living matter.

Well William, based on how they reacted to evolution, abiogenesis, modern cosmology and every other advance of knowledge sich Bronze Age Palestine, what do you think?

Abiogenesis is a rapidly advancing branch of science.

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.»

Abiogenesis is the theory of life coming from lack thereof, and the Big Bang Theory is a theory on its own.

It's called «abiogenesis,» and it's an extremely fascinating field with a number of really smart scientists looking for possible answers.

There is zero supporting evidence for the abiogenesis myth («life from non-life» foundation of atheism), but mountains of evidence for Jewish (Biblical) history, including written records by multiple authors, confirmed people, places, events, timelines, fulfilled prophesies, Israel scattered, Israel restored etc..

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

When you talk about the origins of life it is abiogenesis, and the beginnings of the universe is in the realm of cosmology.

There are a few theories that are being tossed around in terms of explanations for abiogenesis and cosmology.

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

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution, nor does evolutionary theory address the abiogenesis of life, the transition from non-living material to live, that is still a mystery.

If evolutionary theory is so clear, why do so many people conflate it with abiogenesis and why do so many get «survival of the fittest» (selection) wrong?