Recent Origins of Life Research

In 2008, the International Society for the Study of Origins of Life, held a symposium on the origins and early evolution of life.

350 scientists from all over the world came together with more than 310 presentations.

The journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere has collected the abstracts into one volume.  This is 214 pages of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on origins of life research.


This entry was posted in Biology, Chemistry, Evolution, evolution, Origins of Life, Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Recent Origins of Life Research

  1. You are only posting this to make Joe G cry.

    And because it’s cool to see this sort of work going. 🙂

  2. ogremkv says:

    Honestly, I couldn’t care less about JoeG. He is permantly banned here and his posts will never be seen by any living thing.

    But, yes, this stuff is very, very cool. Unlike what any creationists say, the truth is that this is a hugely active field of study and a great number of scientists are working these kinds of things.

  3. Naon Tiotami says:

    That is amazing, thank you! *reads for hours*

  4. Pingback: Want to be slowly crushed to death by the abstracts of abiogenesis papers? « Homologous Legs

  5. david salako says:

    The simple fact is there can be no research into the origins of life because those who seek answers cannot know how it happened. Therefore such research can only be based on assumptions and pressupositions. The origin of life is biogenesis. Biogenesis has refuted abiogenesis.

  6. OgreMkV says:

    Keep saying it… maybe it’ll be true someday.

    You keep not reading. This research, as I’ve stated numerous times, is NOT to show exactly how life began on this world. That will, likely never be known. No scientist expects it to be known.

    This research DOES show that you are wrong… that there is NO chemical or physical reason why live couldn’t have developed via abiogenesis.

    If you have evidence to the contrary, then please list it. Peer-reviewed research?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so.

    What I find utterly amusing is that you claim I have assumptions and presuppositions… yet your entire argument begins with “Gos exists as our premise”. The other really funny thing is that you are requiring evidence from science that you are not requiring from your own pet notions. That’s called hypocrisy.

  7. david salako says:

    Chemical reason and physical reason you say. What is the nature of this chemical or physical evidence? I do know about chemical evolution. By the way biogenesis is clear. For it has occured 7billion times. So that is not a fact. Moreover taxonomy shows that it is biologically impossible for life of another group or genos to produce of life with others from another group. Taxonomy is the classifications of organisms on the basis of biological origin, design, and similarity. This science is in harmony with creation account where things are said to bring forth other things after their kind. Biogenesis is compatible with creationism up to a certain extent. The only problem with biogenesis is explaining where the first life came from. But that is not a problem for the creationist. As you say-the God of the gap. By the way there is no gap, only a lack of knowledge. For causalty-the relationship between cause and effect-shows the first existence must also have a cause.

  8. OgreMkV says:

    Once again, you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. These are not the same things. I would ask that you stick to one or the other.

    Of course, humans only come from humans. Just like dogs only come from dogs… except a dachshund doesn’t come from a great Dane… does it? Interesting that. Do you expect to have a great Dane give birth to a dachshund, and a beagle, and a corgi, and a great Pyrenees? Of course, you don’t. That’s because you can only make small changes each generation. However, over ling periods of time, those changes result in different species.

    You might look up ‘clines’ (or popularly called ‘ring species).

    Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is about CHEMISTRY. Until you get a replicating system that replicate imperfectly, then evolution is NOT a factor. Biology is not a factor. Only chemistry and physics are involved.

    Now, do you deny that it is possible to generate organic compounds from non-organic sources, without a living thing being involved?

    BTW: Of course, there is a lack of knowledge. That’s what science is about, finding that knowledge. What would you have us do? Nothing? God is a science stopper. As soon as you say, God-did-it, then everything is over and all the great discoveries that our modern world depends on, would not exist. You want us to be stuck in the middle ages?

    The creation myth also says that you can change the kids color by having the parents mate in front of a colored stick… I wonder how well that works out.

    Again, you attack science, with little to no understanding of what scientists even say… and yet you completely fail to present any evidence for your own position.

    It is obvious to anyone when your position is untenable. You simply don’t support it.

    Now, I asked a question about chemical synthesis of organic compounds. DO be so good as to answer it.

  9. david salako says:

    So the first life also had a cause since all life is finite. However the cause was not by being born because there would have to be a human that was not born. However we know that this is biologically impossible. For every human life is created in the womb and then we are born. This is a closed(or conclusive) biological law of nature. Therefore human life cannot be created by any other means. Yet, the first life was not created through the means of reproduction. That is a violation of the closed biological laws. Only miracles can do that. Therefore we have a sign from nature that God is the efficient cause that created the first lifes because only God can perform miracles. So from nature we may discern the nature of God. This arguement is solid. For by nature the scriptures isconfirmed. For example, if there is letter that tells you that when you see smoke released into the air it is noon to end of confirming john. And you see that smoke and it is noon. Then it means john exists.

  10. david salako says:

    Abiogenesis is a view of the origin of life. Or the beginning of life from non-life. Evolution deals with what happened after that pressuposition(abiogenesis). Moreover there are 6 concepts of evolution, namely: 1. Macro-evolution 2. Micro-evolution 3. Organic evolution 4. The evolution of plants and animals from rocks. 5. The evolution of planet and stars from dust 6. And thiestic evolution. However in this context we are refering to both macro and micro-evolution on the basis of neo-darwinism(Darwin and Gregor Mendel). Therefore abiogenesis is the pressuposition about the start of life from none life. And evolution by natural selection is the pressuposition that tells us what happened after the pressupossition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is fills the gap by speculation about what happened before life began to evolve. So you are wrong, i understand the science clearly. I also wish you and i can debate properly. Also you are wrong, Genesis never says anything about skin colour. Colour is about melanine.

  11. david salako says:

    So melanine is about pigmentation that regulate skin colour on the basis of genes. Albinos have no melanine. Hence the colour of their skin(it is a genetic disorder). If small amounts of melanine is released then you will have a white pigmentation. And in an envuroment that with less sunlight the advantages of that is the body can easily synthesise vitamin responsible for preventing rickets. But if more melanine is produced then aperson will possess a black pigmentation. The advantages of this is that in a hot enviroment it protects from burns and susceptibility to cancer. And all other pigmentations of brown arein between on the basis of the amount of melanine that is produced. Melanine is considered to be a micro-evolutionary adaptative feature of ones phenotype. That is, genetic traits that are produced as a response to enviromental factors. Or mutations that occur as a result of that. The science is clearly demonstrated to you, and i can assure you that the bible says nothing about melanine. Wrong!

  12. david salako says:

    You asked me this question-“is it possible to generate organic compounds from inorganic compounds without any existing life?” firstly you are using organic and inorganic in the context of chemicals, rather than,lets say, in contrast to the essence of living things or organic matter in distinction to inorganic matter. To answer your question i would say that even if it is possible to do so it does not prove how life began on the basis that know one knows how it began. And to say that redearch says “there is no reason” that life could not have originated in these other ways is speculation on the basis that such assumed evidence cannot be used to confirm it is so on the basis that no one has any empirical evidence of the actual event. Science cannot go into the past. When it does it becomes an hypothesis. For to confirm your theory we would need the original inorganic compounds. Therefore start building your time machine because you are going to be traveling 65billion years ago. Good luck buddy.

  13. david salako says:

    And if know one knows how origin of life began, then how do you know it was inorganic compounds that began it? How do they know that it began on an inorganic basis? It is clear your views are pressupositions you are desperately trying to hold on to. Well! I understand-it is all you have. But by holding it you are not being true to science.

  14. OgreMkV says:

    firstly you are using organic and inorganic in the context of chemicals, rather than,lets say, in contrast to the essence of living things or organic matter in distinction to inorganic matter.

    This simple sentence shows that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

    Organic compounds = compounds with carbon in them
    Inorganic compounds = compounds without carbon in them
    They, by definition, are chemicals. Urea is a chemical, that is organic and can be produced by living things and by processes that do not involve living things.

    I think we’re done here. You are in moderation until you learn some 9th grade level science.

    However, some of my friends would like to meet you. You can find them here. It’s a forum for just these types of discussions. My blog is not your forum… you may go here:;act=SF;f=14

  15. 达到了佛家以神驱气,精气自壮,固本还源的理念。

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s