AthiestS,why did abiogenesis stop happening,and why did it stop?

I ask this of atheistS because when I say I don't believe in it in other questions,and get a bunch of thumbs down(from athiestS)(I know avatars),but never a good answer to the questions above.I only know the basic premise of this,maybe you can help me understand.


I meant when did it stop,then why.

Update 2:

I will ask this in science next,but even the ones who say it exist atheist or not can not answer this question.

Update 3:

@ so crates;stop forming life.

Update 4:

@dream stuff;Were you there?how do you know these things as facts,please cite your source.There seems to be no MolecularOxygen,around today either,so how do you say conditions are different. different.What life today would eat the life out of abiogenesis,I need facts not conjecture.Molecular oxygen, O2 has been expected historically to be an abundant component of the chemical species in molecular clouds and, as such, an important coolant of the dense interstellar medium. However, a number of attempts from both ground and from space have failed to detect O2 emission.

Update 5:

@jpopelis;So we ate abiogenesis away?lol.Please tell me where i can see these stages of our billion year evolvement,and link the fossils of the past to man,truth is there are no inter mediate links(with fossils(as far as evolution))to modern man,your philosophy has many holes.Please facts not conjecture.Not trying to debate ,but you guys make it hard.

Update 6:

@mark;I have been chosen b/a by the asker of my last two evolution answers w the exception of the current(active) one even w/ many thumbs down.So that doesn't concern as in hurting my feelings,it is that they come w/ no merit,because I always back up what I say with example or physical evidence.That is why I am picked b/a by the askers alot like my last 8 b/a s were chosen by asker.My percentage would be through the roof if I just agreed w/ everyone.But I don't play that way.look for yourself.Like i said I always back up what I say.

Update 7:

And I have thumbs downed noone here,as I respect your answers even if i don't agree. I just love the debate.

Update 8:

gy a halfway decent answer from there ,but still has a big what if.Darwin, in a personal letter (not in his actual books or theory), gave us one big reason ...


“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

(Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to Hooker. Reproduced in Calvin, M. (1969). Chemical Evolution pp 1-8. Oxford University Press, London: as quoted in “Did minerals perform prebiotic combinatorial chemistry?”, Alan W. Schwartz, Chemistry & Biology 1996, 3:515-518).


Update 9:

O.K ,This guy has B.S in biology and is a biology tutor,It still sounds like conjecture with the big what if.And it goes back to the we ate ABG away because we eat them before they have a chance to flourish?That answer seems to be setting a pattern .I asked for facts only but I will let this guy slide,because he has credence w/ his education.Thanx for playin boys and girls and jury is still out on this one,I'm not buying it.

Update 10:

Sorry here is the rest......this should be over my last post. The origin of life on Earth would have required the accumulation and complexification of organic compounds, over the course of millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of years. But once life existed, it would be there to feed on accumulating organic compounds, preventing them from accumulating and complexifying.


BS in biology; university biology tutor

* 29 minutes ago

17 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The chemistry that lead up to the first life on Earth has not stopped or changed very much. But when it first happened, the world was not populated with billions of hungry mouths eating anything made of biomolecules. Today, those life precursors have no chance to compete with each other and evolve complexity before they are digested by some life form that has been evolving for a few billion years, already. It is their environment that has changed so dramatically.



    John Popelish

  • 1 decade ago

    Good question because it is obvious your intention isn't to troll. As far as I am aware abiogenesis hasn't been replicated under lab conditions. However that doesn't mean it never would and it likely would given the progress science is making nowadays. Just look at how fast stem cell research is going!

  • 1 decade ago

    Conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

  • 1 decade ago

    Actually it may not have, there cold be several different forms of life on this planet which all had unique origins, but this is the only form of life we know of.

    Also: this question should have been directed at biologists, atheists are not all biologists. And giving a TU/TD is anonymous.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I'm not an atheist, but I've wondered the same thing myself. If life spontaneously appeared from inorganic matter, it would have then died shortly thereafter, leading to another untold millions of years before Great Accident caused it to appear again. Of course it would have died yet again, but I digress for now.

    It seems to reason that if life can suddenly appear (repeatedly) from inorganic matter, certainly it could appear much more easily from the organic matter produced by those life forms that have died. Life spontaneously appearing should be an everyday occurrence, as was believed in the middle ages, but it's not.

  • Mark
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I didn't know you could see who gives you a thumbs down.

    I think you put way to much into what you "believe".

    I don't have many beliefs myself and I could care less about yours. If thumbs mean so much to you I think you need to have a long talk with a shrink.


    Beyond belief

  • 1 decade ago

    <----- Majored in English.

    I am not qualified to answer this question just because I lack belief in all deities. The thing I am qualified for is correcting your abominable use of capitalization and punctuation.

    Ask in science, and you'll get more scientific answers.

  • BEN
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Because of the conditions on earth now, it is not suitable for abiogenesis.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I am an atheist, not a biologist.

    Perhaps you do not get responses because your question doesnt make sense?? Why did abiogenesis stop happening, and why did it stop? STOP WHAT?!?!?!

  • 1 decade ago

    Just look up abiogenesis and see how it is supposed to happen. I'm not knowledgeable about it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.