I’m ashamed of you folks; using this as a soapbox to shout down creationism in favour of evolution, when this wasn’t what RS was asking, is as dishonest a trick as creationists bringing up biogenesis in an evolution debate.
That’s a good question, but it’s reading too much into the OP.
Since Royal Sampler has not (yet) voiced any stand on “Biblical creation,” challenging him to defend that stance strikes me as a tad unsportsmanlike.
When was the last time someone called you an evolutionist, and they weren’t a creationist? Are there widespread theories other than some form of creation or evolution for the origins of life on Earth? Will you ever convince someone that maybe we don’t know how life originated because we don’t have a million years to do the experiment, and that admitting you don’t know everything doesn’t automatically invalidate your philosophy?
The Miller-Urey experiment and others like it didn’t produce life, but they took place over time periods that are geologically nonexistent. If you leave the components of simple life, as well as things that could nearly pass for life, floating around in a soup for a billion years, something’s going to happen.
Trucido, I think RS probably is a creationist, but he’s asking an honest question about biogenesis; for us to drag the debate into the arena of biological evolution (where we are much more comfortable arguing) is no more honourable than when the creationists drag an evolution debate out of the arena.
Mangetout,
I appreciate your general point of answering the original idea.
However I challenge your use of the phrase ‘honest question about biogenesis’ above.
The only two types of people who ask ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students.
The only type of person who uses the phrase ‘Evolutionists’ is a Christian creationist.
It can be ‘difficult’ to have a scientific discussion with someone who relies entirely on faith and ‘assesses’ scientific evidence by dismissing it if it disagrees with their Holy Book.
The answers to the thread title and the original two questions are:
Evolutionists: How did life evolve from non-living matter?
For evolutionists, read scientists.
It didn’t - this process is called (a)biogenesis.
Is the process of non-living matter transforming in to living matter “evolution”?
See above answer.
Why can’t the process be replicated in science labs today?
The process may require considerable time (as in geological periods), the use of planetary areas and conditions not easily duplicated.
Tracer, Dr. Lao and Opus1 already gave these answers early on in the thread; I’m just summarising.
Sure, it was a poorly phrased and addressed question, but still, we’re fighting ignorance here, not fighting people.
I’m a reformed creationist myself, I had to ask some stupid-sounding and ill-informed questions during that process of reform. Thankfully, people mostly answered my questions in the spirit they were asked.
They gave you stupid-sounding and ill-informed answers? How did THAT help? 
i.e. they answered the question that I would have been asking if I knew what I was talking about, but you knew that really, didn’t you?
True, but you can’t convince a fervent religious believer of anything that contradicts his sacred texts.
“God planted the fossil evidence to test my faith”.
Is there any other kind? 
I get worked up on this shit too, but really it’s not very civil of me… Somebody asked a question… it’s been answered… speculation is bad m’kay… If he responds as has been speculated, then we all know the discussion isn’t worth continuing… but until then just chill with ad hominem-style shit.
Okay then, while everyone here is convinced by the evidence for evolution, biogenesis is still in the realm of speculation. Is this a fair statement?
I’ll just say that my current pet theory does not involve the amino-acid “protein world” theory necessitated by the Miller-Urey experiment. One can just as easily create simple sugars from things like carbon dioxide and water with a bit of creative organic chemistry. Simple sugars and some nitrogen-containing bases can lead to nucleic acids. One of these, ribonucleic acid (RNA), has been shown to have very interesting properties – it catalyzes some of the more important reactions in a cell, including nearly all of the reactions needed to assemble proteins. RNA molecules have been found which cleave each other and which polymerize new RNA molecules. We are only a short step away from self-replicating RNA molecules, which would be the simplest form of life. I think that this “RNA world” fits with the data much more nicely than the 1960s “protein world.”
grienspace
It is clear that abiogenesis happened. We just don’t know the exact specifics of how the first reactions occured. But, there was something like 2 billion years for them to happen (which is roughly the same amount of time that life has been around on the planet), so even things which seem quite improbable to us now may have occured over such a long time.
Speculation, yes; but we can make some educated guesses as to natural processes by which it could have happened.
With no God-of-the-gaps required.
edwino wrote:
Actually, not that long. The Earth cooled off to the point where it had a solid surface and liquid water about 4.5-4.7 billion years ago. The oldest stromatolite fossils are (I believe) over 3.8 billion years old. This leaves, at most, 0.9 billion years between the formation of the Earth and the appearance of the first living organisms.
Whats a stromatolite fossil? To me(and I only took one year of college bio, so I’m not totally up on things), the word fossil implies life. So, again to me, saying fossils first showed up 3.8 billion years ago says that life first showed up 3.8 billion years ago. Mind fighting my ignorance a little?
Stromatolites are the fossilized remains of bacterial colonies. (And I was wrong; according to the talk.origins Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the oldest stromatolites are 3.5 billion years old, not 3.8 billion.)
Note that, while all fossils are the remains of once-living organisms, not all once-living organisms leave fossils. In fact, fossilization is a rather rare process, particularly for land-dwelling animals. So, while 3.5 billion year old stromatolites (bacteria colony fossils) do indeed demonstrate that bacteria lived on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, they do not demonstrate that bacteria weren’t living on this planet even farther in the past than 3.5 billion years ago. Life may have arisen even earlier than this.
Ok I see what messed me up now. I thank you for your explanation of stromalites. I had misread the post that started this little tangent.
I read that as saying that life had only been around for 0.9 billion years. My mistake.
I have had polite conversations with people who happily used the phrase “God planted the fossil evidence to test my faith”. So although I think the phrase doesn’t prove anything, it’s not an insult to use it.
(Of course you calling it shit might be provocative )
Hi all,
First let me clear up my “stand point”. I am neither a convinced Christian nor a convinced ‘evolutionary’ (I possibly just invented a word) I am merely someone seeking some answers. When I first joined the boards I asked a question hear in GD posing as a steadfast Creationist, but the truth is I am not. I’m just someone seeking answers. But you’re not going to convince me that what Fox and the likes did in their experiments was create life. It’s very easy to point out all of the ‘life-like’ charactertics about microspheres, but at the end of the day, what Fox created WAS NOT life.
That said, I was wondering if anyone had any theories on the origin of matter, that doesn’t involve a Creator.
I think you’re missing the point, Royal. What those experiments did was map out parts of the road from inert-chemicals to life, showing not just that life could have arisen from the chemical soup, but that there were many plausible ways for it do so.
Let me ask you something: say a scientist starting stringing those experiments together, and whatever other experiments he needed, to go from boxes of raw chemical consitituents and lab equipment to something that we recognize today as being alive. What would count for you to say that they had created life: a bacteria, an amoeba, a human fetus?