[_ Old Earth _] Abiogenisis

[Texalberta]

I have stated that there is no evidence for Abiogenisis, that it's nothing more than wild eyed fairy tale.

There have been claims that "synthetic life" has been created.

I ask for evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have stated that there is no evidence for Abiogenisis, that it's nothing more than wild eyed fairy tale.

Observing that there is a great deal about abiogenesis that is as yet unknown is not the same as denying that it occurred naturally nor proclaiming that there is no evidence that meets whatever undefined criteria you are offering that determine what amounts to evidence.

There have been claims that "synthetic life" has been created.

I ask for evidence.

Well, synthetic DNA has been successfully used to stimulate self-replication in cells (Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com). Is this what you mean?

 

[Ashua]

If you are referring to the claim that they have *ahem* "created" *ahem* amino acids in a lab, and that is your evidence for abiogenesis, then that is like dumping a bucket filled with tooth picks and observing an H formed there a T there and so on. Equating an amino acid with actual like would be more like dumping that same bucket and getting a coherent novel spelled by the arranged sticks.

Observing that there is a great deal about abiogenesis that is as yet unknown is not the same as denying that it occurred

In the other thread you were never slow to call out a "lack of evidence" when I would say records were destroyed for instance. Why do you retreat to the argument of uncertainty now?

 

[lordkalvan]

If you are referring to the claim that they have *ahem* "created" *ahem* amino acids in a lab, and that is your evidence for abiogenesis, then that is like dumping a bucket filled with tooth picks and observing an H formed there a T there and so on. Equating an amino acid with actual like would be more like dumping that same bucket and getting a coherent novel spelled by the arranged sticks.

No, I was referring to the experiment linked to and, no, I was not offering even this as evidence for a specific abiogenesis event. I was pointing out that steps along the path to providing an entirely naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis are taking place in research labs in many countries. As amino acids can form entirely naturally from inorganic matter and as amino acids are the 'building blocks' of life, dismissing the idea that amino acids can be created in the lab (they can, despite your quotation marks) smacks of simple denialism more than reasoned argument.

In the other thread you were never slow to call out a "lack of evidence" when I would say records were destroyed for instance. Why do you retreat to the argument of uncertainty now?

If records were destroyed, what evidence do you offer concerning their contents? I simply pointed out that because abiogenesis research is at a relatively embryonic stage at the moment and unable to answer every question that is directed towards it, this does not mean that it has and will have nothing to offer for our understanding of the origins of life. The position of Texalberta, for example, would seem to be analogous to someone asserting that because Ernest Rutherford could not provide the blueprint for a fusion reactor in 1917, his pioneering work in nuclear physics was nonsense because neither could it immediately offer an explanation for the origins of the Universe.

 

[Deavonreye]

This strikes me the same as when men thought that the earth was flat, and other men, who wanted to test that theory proved it to be a false belief. Or, when men thought that man would never be able to fly in a heavier than air craft. Brave men experimented and this came into being. "The sound barrier can never be broken." It was. Fear of the unknown has produced a better world often times. I see this [abiogenesis] in the same way. Rather than saying "it is impossible", let men experiment to see. Maybe they will find out that it actually COULDN'T happen. Most likely, they will. But remaining in "the dark ages" stagnates human development. I'm just saying to wait, . . . hold the tongue for a while. Let them test it.

 

[Texalberta]

lordkalvan@

I simply pointed out that because abiogenesis research is at a relatively embryonic stage at the moment and unable to answer every question that is directed towards it,

As has already been pointed out the evolutionists on the board are pretty quick in screaming about evidence..yet when the light shines on them...it's a "oh please wait and see".
They certainly don't mind piling on someone and taking their shots;)

Oh, and "relatively embryonic stage"? 50 years of experiments, millions of dollars and...the Easter bunny.

Your link doesn't work by the way.

The J. Craig Venter Institute claims to have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.

Taking a wee bit of something out of one bacterium and substituting a bit out of another, wow, did you actually read what they did?
It would seem to be analogous to substituting one carburetor from a Ford to a Chevy and proclaiming "WE BUILT A NEW CAR".

And so far no other lab I can find has duplicated this, till then we have nothing more than another "I made cold fusion" story.

lordkalvan@

As amino acids can form entirely naturally from inorganic matter and as amino acids are the 'building blocks' of life, dismissing the idea that amino acids can be created in the lab (they can, despite your quotation marks) smacks of simple denialism more than reasoned argument.

Yeah, you can make amino acids in a lab, so?
You can't do anything with them.
Which experiment that forms amino acids are you referring to, by the way?
You don't have the foggiest clue on what the primitive earth atmosphere was.
In short you got nuthin'.

Nothing but wild eyed claims.
No facts.
Thanks for coming out.

 

[jasoncran]

This strikes me the same as when men thought that the earth was flat, and other men, who wanted to test that theory proved it to be a false belief. Or, when men thought that man would never be able to fly in a heavier than air craft. Brave men experimented and this came into being. "The sound barrier can never be broken." It was. Fear of the unknown has produced a better world often times. I see this [abiogenesis] in the same way. Rather than saying "it is impossible", let men experiment to see. Maybe they will find out that it actually COULDN'T happen. Most likely, they will. But remaining in "the dark ages" stagnates human development. I'm just saying to wait, . . . hold the tongue for a while. Let them test it.

i am not against these queries.not at all.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Let's start off by saying that there isn't one theory of Abiogenesis, there are quite a few. The reason for this is because there are a lot of different ways abiogenesis may have occurred on earth. Before we show these we need to know what Abiogenesis actually means.

Abiogenesis is when a planet (with no living organisms) has an event dubbed 'Spontaneous Generation' in a natural sense. In other words, there was once no life on earth, and now there is.

The theories of Abiogenesis attempt to explain the natural ways this can occur.

Because there are so many different theories behind Abiogenesis, I'd like to know which one in particular the OP would rather discuss the validity of first, so as to be more orderly.

TexAlberta, which Abiogenesis theory would you prefer to discuss first?

 

[Ashua]

I would simply like to know why abiogenesis is considered a scientific theory and "God(s)" is not. Seems to me that both should be considered a valid theory by scientists or neither. Also, I am curious beyond this to the origin of the elements. "amattergenesis"???

 

[lordkalvan]

As has already been pointed out the evolutionists on the board are pretty quick in screaming about evidence..yet when the light shines on them...it's a "oh please wait and see".

You seem to think you should expect an answer to every question that you can think of and that satisfies your personal requirements of credibility before you can decide whether something is potentially worthwhile or not. Are you suggesting that abiogenesis research is pointless? Other than opinion, do you have any reason for this conclusion? Our understanding of gravity is far from perfect and complete; does this mean we should conclude that we can learn nothing else about it, that we should abandon all research into the subject and that we should regard it as some sort of supernatural phenomenon that science can offer us no insights into at all?

They certainly don't mind piling on someone and taking their shots;)

As all you have done so far is coat-trail, I don't know what you expect.

Oh, and "relatively embryonic stage"? 50 years of experiments, millions of dollars and...the Easter bunny.

You mean in the same way as 70 years of creationist 'research' has failed to come up with anything remotely approaching a robust definition of 'kind'? If you imagine that abiogenesis research has not progressed at all in the last 50 years, maybe you should go do some reading on the subject.

Your link doesn't work by the way.

Sorry about that.

The J. Craig Venter Institute claims to have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.

Do you have a source for this claim? You seem to be adding the adverb off your own bat. The experiment required the researchers to stitch together several pieces of digitized DNA to construct a whole genome which they then substituted for the native DNA of the host cell; the resulting manufactured product could self-replicate and was synthetically created (i.e. not completely synthetic as you asserted).

Taking a wee bit of something out of one bacterium and substituting a bit out of another, wow, did you actually read what they did?
It would seem to be analogous to substituting one carburetor from a Ford to a Chevy and proclaiming "WE BUILT A NEW CAR".

A very poor analogy. Scientists engaged in bio research and not associated with the Venter labs take a different view: ‘This is a very impressive piece’ (Jim Collins, Boston University); ‘This work represents an important piece of the puzzle’ (Ron Weiss, Princeton University).

And so far no other lab I can find has duplicated this, till then we have nothing more than another "I made cold fusion" story.

And yet it’s such a simple, straightforward procedure that according to you it doesn’t amount to very much more than swapping carburettors from one car to another.

Yeah, you can make amino acids in a lab, so?
You can't do anything with them.

Regardless of what you imagine can and can’t be done with synthetic amino acids, the simple fact that they can be produced entirely naturally and that they constitute the ‘building blocks’ of life, i.e. the base material from which proteins are formed, has direct implications for arguments concerning whether or not life can form naturalistically.

Which experiment that forms amino acids are you referring to, by the way?

It’s not an experiment, it is common procedure in labs and the food industry.

You don't have the foggiest clue on what the primitive earth atmosphere was.
In short you got nuthin'.

All you seem to have is unfounded claims. Despite your ill-informed assertion, the oxidation state of iron in the geological record tells us a great deal about how the atmosphere developed. The occurrence of minerals that cannot form in oxidizing environments (e.g. Pyrite and Uraninite) is also informative. You might also want to consider the implications of banded iron formations and red beds in early rocks.

Nothing but wild eyed claims.
No facts.
Thanks for coming out.

And thanks for demonstrating so effectively the apparent lack of your own understanding.

 

[Ashua]

No, I was referring to the experiment linked to and, no, I was not offering even this as evidence for a specific abiogenesis event. I was pointing out that steps along the path to providing an entirely naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis are taking place in research labs in many countries. As amino acids can form entirely naturally from inorganic matter and as amino acids are the 'building blocks' of life, dismissing the idea that amino acids can be created in the lab (they can, despite your quotation marks) smacks of simple denialism more than reasoned argument.

If records were destroyed, what evidence do you offer concerning their contents? I simply pointed out that because abiogenesis research is at a relatively embryonic stage at the moment and unable to answer every question that is directed towards it, this does not mean that it has and will have nothing to offer for our understanding of the origins of life. The position of Texalberta, for example, would seem to be analogous to someone asserting that because Ernest Rutherford could not provide the blueprint for a fusion reactor in 1917, his pioneering work in nuclear physics was nonsense because neither could it immediately offer an explanation for the origins of the Universe.

All I am saying is that this absence of evidence is just as "dubious" as any other absence on any other topic. Also, I just wanted to clear up a misunderstanding:

dismissing the idea that amino acids can be created in the lab (they can, despite your quotation marks) smacks of simple denialism more than reasoned argument.

The purpose of using quotation marks was not to question that they have created the amino acids. It was to emphasize the word "created" as opposed to "just happened". The point was the scientists themselves were acting as a creative agent. --playing the role of "God" in the scale model of their lab. Sorry for the vagueness.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I would simply like to know why abiogenesis is considered a scientific theory and "God(s)" is not. Seems to me that both should be considered a valid theory by scientists or neither. Also, I am curious beyond this to the origin of the elements. "amattergenesis"???

First off, we would need to know what god we're talking about (after all there are thousands upon thousands of religions and even more gods), then we'd have to apply every form of creation from these religions as well. None of these can be considered Abiogenesis however because Abiogenesis refers to a Natural way of spontaneous generation, where as a god and religious point of view has always been a supernatural way.

To answer most of the people who consider Abiogenesis not to be scientific, please read the following

1. There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

* research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
* synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
* research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
* synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).

2. See also the references and suggested readings with Primitive cells are too complex, Abiogenesis experiments assume a reducing atmosphere, DNA needs proteins to form, proteins need DNA, Amino acids are left-handed,

References:

1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

 

[Deavonreye]

First off, we would need to know what god we're talking about (after all there are thousands upon thousands of religions and even more gods), then we'd have to apply every form of creation from these religions as well. None of these can be considered Abiogenesis however because Abiogenesis refers to a Natural way of spontaneous generation, where as a god and religious point of view has always been a supernatural way.

This is actually a very good point. Teaching in a field of science must be accompanied by an ability to test hypothesise. With a religiously inspired creation myth, you automatically have an incorporated "magical" ingredient that couldn't be tested. In this light, any creation myth must be given equal time, because the widest held belief cannot be proven to be the one that actually took place, so then you are just spreading religion in a science class, only.

 

[lordkalvan]

All I am saying is that this absence of evidence is just as "dubious" as any other absence on any other topic.

My point was that there are observable phenomena associated with the way in which life metabolizes and multiplies that are known to have entirely natural, chemical origins that do not require them to be alive and that some of those phenomena can be reproduced artificially without any supernatural intervention at all. This contributes to an understanding that the origin of life may also be explicable by natural processes.

Also, I just wanted to clear up a misunderstanding:

The purpose of using quotation marks was not to question that they have created the amino acids. It was to emphasize the word "created" as opposed to "just happened". The point was the scientists themselves were acting as a creative agent. --playing the role of "God" in the scale model of their lab. Sorry for the vagueness.

Okay, my misunderstanding and my apologies for that. An alternative analogy, of course, would be that the scientists were simply standing in for the quite ordinary forces of nature in their 'creative' role in this instance (in the same way that amino acids occur both naturally and synthetically through human intervention).

 

[Ashua]

My point was that there are observable phenomena associated with the way in which life metabolizes and multiplies that are known to have entirely natural, chemical origins that do not require them to be alive and that some of those phenomena can be reproduced artificially without any supernatural intervention at all. This contributes to an understanding that the origin of life may also be explicable by natural processes.

Okay, my misunderstanding and my apologies for that. An alternative analogy, of course, would be that the scientists were simply standing in for the quite ordinary forces of nature in their 'creative' role in this instance (in the same way that amino acids occur both naturally and synthetically through human intervention).

Funny you mention that. the biological process of metabolism is much more complex than most people give it credit for being. The idea that the process of organic metabolism (formed independently multiple times in innumerable species from protozoa to humans, even under the theory of evolution) would somehow spark itself and be able to maintain without anything to build on (origin of metabolism) is like my car jump starting itself --no actually, its like my car developing it's own electrical, exhaust, CPU, oil lines and flow, heat sink, and other processes and systems by itself if I just let it sit there long enough. Also, these protozoa would need to withstand the elements, and weathering, and temperature, and viruses.
And while I am at it, do you believe the one theory which says multiple human beings evolved independently from all over the globe? (In other words, humans evolved in north American and also in Africa and in Asia and so on completely separate from each other.)

Metabolism spontaneously starting itself is quite a task, but to do so well enough to 'survive' for any measurable amount of time is even more considerable. I mean, there are elements which are identified because we have observed them form (and fall apart) within less than 1 second. (I'm hoping you know the one(s) I am talking about. My memory is failing on details. Something is considered an element if it lasts any observable duration of time) So, if certain elemental bonds cannot survive a few seconds, how plausible is it that such a complicated process could generate itself and maintain any significant amount of time? DNA also relies on initial formation, and then functioning well enough for the process of reproduction to generate --and with a success rate.

And why should the function of reproduction even exist in the first place? It seems too intelligent for mere chance. If we were flying over a desert or something looking down and we saw right angles in the earth or under the sea, we would know some man made intelligent structure lies beneath visible undulations. This is one of the many techniques archaeologists use to find sites. A.V Kidder flown by Charles Lindbergh took aerial photographs which led to the discovery of the Anasazi roads. Crop circles --I don't know by what means or by whom the most complex crop circles are made; but I do know that they are the work of intelligent hands: human or otherwise. Nature just does not form complexity or patterns; no, not even a simple right angle. How, then can it form such organic complexities as DNA or metabolism?

 

[Ashua]

First off, we would need to know what god we're talking about (after all there are thousands upon thousands of religions and even more gods), then we'd have to apply every form of creation from these religions as well. None of these can be considered Abiogenesis however because Abiogenesis refers to a Natural way of spontaneous generation, where as a god and religious point of view has always been a supernatural way.

Uh, no we don't. Just the stand alone theory of an active, intentional intelligent creation catalyst as apposed to an inanimate unprovoked spontaneous generation of all matter which comes from "thin air" (As if air was not also subject to matter) This is a God theory. YHVH, allah, shiva, odin, zues, baal, ishtar, brahma, dagon, quetzacotl, buddah, forest spirits, deistic or ANY other deity is irrelevant for the "creator" theory. Figuring out which if any is the true originator is irrelevant on this base level. That comes later.

Why is abiogenesis "natural"? Why is it any more plausible? The origin of life and the origin of space time and matter still ultimately rely on "supernatural" genesis --God or "magic, atomless explosion of oblivion", or otherwise. If you think non life becoming life by itself is any more statistically probable than the other (and that Divinity could not also "abiogenerate" for lack of a better term in context of spirit beings) , I fail to see on what clinically legitimate basis.

Intelligent living catalyst or inanimate force/catastrophe. Zero physical universe to such abundance. oblivion to everything. Trace the steps back to "ground zero" of "creation", and some how matter must have come from absolutely NOTHING. Tell me how rational or natural that is.


Thank you for the link.

 

[Ashua]

Forgot to add:

Science claims that they are investigating abiogenesis and admit they do not know enough about it. That is absolutely fine. They have a theory, they test their theory. That is how science works. Great. terrific. But do not anoint abiogenesis with any air of authority, as if it were beyond reasonable doubt. And do not refuse to keep an open mind towards alternative theories. Until you prove one thing, do not teach it for fact. Until you disprove another, do not dismiss it.

Science has yet to confirm/eliminate Creator(s) theory.
Science has yet to confirm/eliminate abiogenesis theory.

Therefore both should still be scientifically explored and not shut up under the brand of "supernatural".

 

[Evointrinsic]

Ashua: Here's a quick excerpt from the introduction of Treatise on Geochemistryhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780080437514 Volume 8, Pages 41-61

This chapter is devoted to the discussion of the evolution of metabolism, with a particular focus towards redox metabolism and the utilization of redox energy by life. We will deal with various aspects of metabolism that involve direct interaction with, and the extraction of energy from, the environment (catabolic metabolism) and will talk briefly of the reactions that affect mineral formation and dissolution. However, we will de-emphasize the aspects related to the formation of complex molecules and organisms. To some, it will be refreshingly brief; to others, somewhat superficial. This is unavoidable, as our knowledge of the details of the evolution of metabolism is at best slim. However, by piecing together aspects of the properties and history of the Earth and coupling these with what we know of today's metabolism, it is possible to at least frame several different hypotheses that, with time, should be possible to test and modify so that the next writing of this chapter might contain some intellectual entrees and not just the appetizers. Any discussion of metabolic evolution must occur in concert with a consideration of the Earth - the understanding of the forces that drove the co-evolution of life and Earth can be achieved only by considering them together. This theme will pervade this chapter, and any real understanding of the evolution of metabolism must be inexorably coupled to, and consistent with, the geological record of the Earth.The first aspect of evolution concerns the metabolic participants as we know them now (i.e., a definition of metabolic diversity), and the second concerns the sequence of events that have led to this remarkable metabolic diversity. The first part is fairly straightforward: a discussion of the domains of life, and the metabolic achievements that are expressed in the various domains, and relating metabolism to biogeochemical processes whenever possible. The second part is much more problematic. While it is possible to make up nearly any story regarding the evolution of metabolism (and nearly all have been attempted!), the starting point of life is not known (great debates still rage as to the nature and origin of the first living systems), and it is not a trivial matter to specify the sequence and timing of metabolic innovations. As will be discussed below, genetic and genomic data have revealed that genetic exchange between organisms has been so pervasive that it has essentially uncoupled the evolution of taxonomic groups from the evolution of metabolic processes, thus, obscuring the evolutionary trail with blurred signals. Given these challenges, it may be prudent at this time to admit what we do not know, and lay out the challenges for the coming years.

This is the perfect example to show you why both the theories in Abiogenesis and the theory of Evolution are both still Theories, not Laws. We don't know All about either of these two phenomenon, hence the reason why our explanation of both phenomenon are incomplete. Regardless of the fact that both the theory of evolution as well as the theories on abiogenesis are incomplete, we still know for a fact that Evolution does occur and that there was once no life on this planet and now there is.

 

[Evointrinsic]

But do not anoint abiogenesis with any air of authority, as if it were beyond reasonable doubt. And do not refuse to keep an open mind towards alternative theories. Until you prove one thing, do not teach it for fact. Until you disprove another, do not dismiss it.

Science has yet to confirm/eliminate Creator(s) theory.
Science has yet to confirm/eliminate abiogenesis theory.

Therefore both should still be scientifically explored and not shut up under the brand of "supernatural".

Once again, the reason why we do teach theories of Abiogenesis is because we can and have been testing it. The reason we don't teach a "creator(s) theory" is because it is in fact supernatural and we cannot test it because of this. For something to be at all scientific it needs to be testable to some degree. These theories of Abiogenesis are built after the evidence, not before. We do not say "here is a theory, let's find evidence for it" we say "Here is evidence for this, let's build a theory around it".

 

[Evointrinsic]

Uh, no we don't. Just the stand alone theory of an active, intentional intelligent creation catalyst as apposed to an inanimate unprovoked spontaneous generation of all matter which comes from "thin air" (As if air was not also subject to matter) This is a God theory. YHVH, allah, shiva, odin, zues, baal, ishtar, brahma, dagon, quetzacotl, buddah, forest spirits, deistic or ANY other deity is irrelevant for the "creator" theory. Figuring out which if any is the true originator is irrelevant on this base level. That comes later.

Yes actually we do... if you want a scientific debate on a subject we need to pick the subject. We don't pick a field because it's too general and there is too much to talk about. It's like saying "lets debate math" and then I ask "well what kind of math? are we looking at Quantity? Structure? Space? Change? Foundations and Philosophy? Theoretical Computer Science? algebra? geometry? trigonometry? calculus? linear algebra? combinatorics? differential equations? real analysis?
complex analysis? abstract algebra (includes group theory, ring theory, field theory, and module theory)? topology? number theory? logic? probability? statistics? game theory? functional analysis? algebraic geometry? differential geometry? dynamical systems (includes "chaos theory")? numerical analysis? set theory? category theory? model theory?"

So, What theory of Abiogenesis would you prefer to talk about first?

Take note that not all those deities created man and animal the same way, so yes, we would also need to look at which god in particular we are talking about as well.

Why is abiogenesis "natural"? Why is it any more plausible?

By natural we don't mean more plausible, we mean without any assistance from any other non-natural force. As in, produced using the physical means of the physical world. That is all. It's not meant to be insulting to any other perspectives.

As for...

The origin of life and the origin of space time and matter still ultimately rely on "supernatural" genesis --God or "magic, atomless explosion of oblivion", or otherwise. If you think non life becoming life by itself is any more statistically probable than the other (and that Divinity could not also "abiogenerate" for lack of a better term in context of spirit beings) , I fail to see on what clinically legitimate basis.

We do in fact have theories that pertain to natural causes on The origin of space, time and matter, just for the record. But that's another topic.

Intelligent living catalyst or inanimate force/catastrophe. Zero physical universe to such abundance. oblivion to everything. Trace the steps back to "ground zero" of "creation", and some how matter must have come from absolutely NOTHING. Tell me how rational or natural that is.

Once again, this is another topic, i suggest making a new thread if you want to discuss the origin of the universe. That being said we don't need to discuss where everything came from to discuss how life began.