Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[DogmaHunter]

On a second note, you are trying to assume a closed system and it really isn't.

Is the north pole a closed system?
Does it stop ice from forming?

I realize this is rubbing elbows with "you wasn't there so just don't know argument" but it isnt the same thing. I hate that argument by the way.

Good to know. What I take issue with is your claim that if a certain reaction takes place under controlled conditions in a lab, then that reaction is the result of certain intervention of the experiment designers.

This is simply completely false.

Nobody is reaching into my freezer to turn the water into ice. It's simply what happens given the conditions the water finds itself in.

All the freezer does is create a controlled environment. The reactions taking place inside is what happens given such environment.

There's no intervening in this process in any way, shape or form.

I'll look forward to your longer response.

 

[Michael]

Are they actually random though?

I could see a day where we discover some underlying principles that govern radioactive decay in a non-random sense. Perceived randomness does not mean the process is indeed random.

Strange, Unexplained Solar Influence Over Earth's Radioactive Material Could Herald Solar Flares | Popular Science

It's unlikely to be entirely 'random' actually. We actually already know that there is a link between decay rates and solar flare activity.

 

[Michael]

All the freezer does is create a controlled environment. The reactions taking place inside is what happens given such environment.

FYI, your argument is based on the belief that the environment in which life formed was created 'randomly' to begin with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any such experiment will be SO orchestrated that it will be indistinguishable from intelligent design.

So, does that mean that a freezer turning water into ice is indistinguishable from an "intelligent designer" turning water into ice?

It makes no sense.

All cells perform about 200 or so necessary functions.

The cells you are talking about have been evolving for some 3 billion years. First life did not consist of modern cells.

No one's ever going to mix chemicals together and come up with a cell.

Nobody expects that either. You're completely misrepresenting the origins of life hypothesis. I sincerely doubt that you are not aware of this. What abiogenesis researchers are looking for are very simple, very primitive self-replicating molecules which are subject to darwinian processes.

Nobody in the field is looking for a process that results in fully formed modern cells.


You should try a dose of intellectual honesty and not misrepresent an entire field of science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FYI, your argument is based on the belief that the environment in which life formed was created 'randomly' to begin with.

I have said nothing like that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

I feel like "random" is the wrong word to use. It's just probability.

There are some 200 billion ² stars in the universe. Let's say each of those has an average of 3 planets. That's some (200 billion ²)*3 places with a potential of trillions of trials each.

Considering the FACT that known life is built from the most common elements in the universe, I don't consider life to be random at all. I consider it to be inevitable.

In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson: life just looks like an extreme manifestation of complex Chemistry. Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that we are made of the most common elements out there, based on carbon - the chemically richest element we know of - , I can't really see life as THAT special to be honest.

You might use the word "random" when only looking at this planet... Kind of like how it was random that a specific person won the lottery... But looking at the bigger picture, it really isn't surprising that SOMEONE wins the lottery SOMEWHERE. I feel the same about life on this planet. It doesn't seem surprising to me that life exists SOMEWHERE in the universe.

I'ld go further and state that it is extremely likely that life exists on other planets as well.

 

[Michael]

I have said nothing like that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

I feel like "random" is the wrong word to use. It's just probability.

There are some 200 billion ² stars in the universe. Let's say each of those has an average of 3 planets. That's some (200 billion ²)*3 places with a potential of trillions of trials each.

Considering the FACT that known life is built from the most common elements in the universe, I don't consider life to be random at all. I consider it to be inevitable.

FYI, if you're going to allow for the concept of microscopic life to have formed spontaneously based upon a combination of "dumb luck" and time, then you cannot rule out the possibility that the universe itself 'evolved' into a living organism, long before microscopic life formed on Earth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Boltzmann's Anthropic Brain : Cosmic Variance

I'ld go further and state that it is extremely likely that life exists on other planets as well.

I tend to agree actually. For all I know life didn't form here on Earth at all, but rather it formed trillions of years ago and just got 'planted here' by a comet or asteroid a few billion years ago.

 

[Heissonear]

You are not to bright in scientific matters it seems but let me explain this. Evolution is the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came about. This is called abiogenesis and by the way, DNA has already proved evolution which is why it is called a theory.

.

Wrong

You do not like the two plus two simplicity of the relationship. Live with it. Face it. That's your foundation, chap.

.

 

[Heissonear]

I have said nothing like that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

I feel like "random" is the wrong word to use. It's just probability.

There are some 200 billion ² stars in the universe. Let's say each of those has an average of 3 planets. That's some (200 billion ²)*3 places with a potential of trillions of trials each.

Considering the FACT that known life is built from the most common elements in the universe, I don't consider life to be random at all. I consider it to be inevitable.

In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson: life just looks like an extreme manifestation of complex Chemistry. Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that we are made of the most common elements out there, based on carbon - the chemically richest element we know of - , I can't really see life as THAT special to be honest.

You might use the word "random" when only looking at this planet... Kind of like how it was random that a specific person won the lottery... But looking at the bigger picture, it really isn't surprising that SOMEONE wins the lottery SOMEWHERE. I feel the same about life on this planet. It doesn't seem surprising to me that life exists SOMEWHERE in the universe.

I'ld go further and state that it is extremely likely that life exists on other planets as well.

.

What an exercise in faith. What projection of outcome!

But you are still empty handed in evidence, and a believer "that it happened". Stretch, pull, snap, distort, interpret, push equal button.

It is sad how people "lean" on Naturalism. And dramatically proselytize others to their faith events.

.

 

[ChetSinger]

So, does that mean that a freezer turning water into ice is indistinguishable from an "intelligent designer" turning water into ice?

It makes no sense.

The cells you are talking about have been evolving for some 3 billion years. First life did not consist of modern cells.

Nobody expects that either. You're completely misrepresenting the origins of life hypothesis. I sincerely doubt that you are not aware of this. What abiogenesis researchers are looking for are very simple, very primitive self-replicating molecules which are subject to darwinian processes.

Nobody in the field is looking for a process that results in fully formed modern cells.

You should try a dose of intellectual honesty and not misrepresent an entire field of science.

I know the story, exactly. But without experiments to back it up, that's all it is: a story. And an astonishingly unlikely one at that.

 

[Michael]

I know the story, exactly. But without experiments to back it up, that's all it is: a story. And an astonishingly unlikely one at that.

It's even more unlikely than most realize since the behaviors of even single celled organisms are 'intelligent'.

Brainless Slime Mold Physarum polycephalum Shows Intelligence | SciTech Daily

How can awareness and intelligence be related to a 'brain' in a single celled organism?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's even more unlikely than most realize since the behaviors of even single celled organisms are 'intelligent'.

Brainless Slime Mold Physarum polycephalum Shows Intelligence | SciTech Daily

How can awareness and intelligence be related to a 'brain' in a single celled organism?

Intelligence in that case is kind of being dramatic.

 

[Michael]

Intelligence in that case is kind of being dramatic.

How about in this case?

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner -- ScienceDaily

That's quite a nifty trick for a mechanical device.

 

[[serious]]

Are they actually random though?

I could see a day where we discover some underlying principles that govern radioactive decay in a non-random sense. Perceived randomness does not mean the process is indeed random.

This kind of crosses over into levels of physics that are out of my depth, but as far as I know under the best models of physics we have they are fundamentally random. That is, it would be theoretically unknowable when an individual atom would decay, not just a measurement problem. I know of no alternate theory which would provide a theoretical mechanism by which decays could be predicted or in any way non random on an individual atom level.

But as I said, I only took a couple of upper level physics classes and only as an undergrad. If we have a real physicist in the house, please let me know how well I did.

 

[Michael]

This kind of crosses over into levels of physics that are out of my depth, but as far as I know under the best models of physics we have they are fundamentally random. That is, it would be theoretically unknowable when an individual atom would decay, not just a measurement problem. I know of no alternate theory which would provide a theoretical mechanism by which decays could be predicted or in any way non random on an individual atom level.

But as I said, I only took a couple of upper level physics classes and only as an undergrad. If we have a real physicist in the house, please let me know how well I did.

In terms of understanding the mechanism, your position is currently correct. The fact there is a link to solar flares however would suggest that the mechanism is likely to be related to either the density of neutrino flow though our planet, or EM field influences. I "think" (not entirely sure) that the later option has been played with and ruled out already. I'm not aware of any neutrino experiments yet.

 

[[serious]]

True, but - and correct me if I'm wrong - but the distribution of these probabilities aren't random.

It's impossible to predict (and thus 'random') when the next one will decay or which one will be next... but in the bigger picture, it still complies to the statistical probability of how long it takes on average (how else would we know the half-life thereof?).

So while quantum mechanics contains randomness and uncertainty, the statistical distribution thereof is deterministic and thus not random. Right?

Quantum physics is hard

With a large sample, you will see a logarithmic decay with particles being ejected uniformly, (this is what makes radio-dating so reliable) but each individual decay is entirely random. YOu would not, for example, see a spike in decays as the sample approached it's half life in order to get to that half life.

With any random event, you will be able to plot it and get a general shape as a result of the nature and probabilities of that random event, but is we call anything that can be plotted after the fact non-random, we've just redefined "random" as something that doesn't exist

Am I answering your question?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory and claim this proves the idea of the origin of life. It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.

I say this for the simple fact that the experiment must be orchestrated. Any interaction from an external being removes the truly random component from the experiment. Simply by observing the experiment, touching, or measuring any part of it excludes it from being purely random. Hence the experiment becomes immeasurable and proves nothing.

If you create a certain environment and then something happens, then it is safe to say that if that environment exists elsewhere, that same thing will likely happen.

That's one of the basic tenets of the scientific method: uniformity through time and space. If one thing is observed at one place and one time, the same observation is expected at a different place and different time.


I feel like all you are really trying to say is that you don't think we can re-create the environment properly. This is true, we can never with 100% certainty know the conditions of the early Earth. But if we use the evidence available to re-create it as best we can, and we are able to create some proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule, then that is still pretty damning evidence for those against abiogenesis.

 

[[serious]]

In terms of understanding the mechanism, your position is currently correct. The fact there is a link to solar flares however would suggest that the mechanism is likely to be related to either the density of neutrino flow though our planet, or EM field influences. I "think" (not entirely sure) that the later option has been played with and ruled out already. I'm not aware of any neutrino experiments yet.

An as yet unknown particle capture scenario could produce another non-random type of decay. I'd be curious to see if the variations bear out and if they are present across all atoms that spontaneously decay.

If we need an alternate random thing, we've got a whole list of similar phenomena:
spontaneous emission of light by an excited electron
brownian motion
black body radiation
Hawking radiation (has not been directly observed yet, but is predicted by current models)

Perhaps, though, it would be better to say that the current best models are non deterministic at a fine scale and no deterministic model is known which can explain all known phenomena.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about in this case?

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner -- ScienceDaily

That's quite a nifty trick for a mechanical device.

Well, they aren't machines, they do have sensory proteins that regulate such processes.

 

[ChetSinger]

It's even more unlikely than most realize since the behaviors of even single celled organisms are 'intelligent'.

Brainless Slime Mold Physarum polycephalum Shows Intelligence | SciTech Daily

How can awareness and intelligence be related to a 'brain' in a single celled organism?

A single cell, with millions of nuclei? Bizarre.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with you that any such experiment must be orchestrated.

I'll go a step further. Any such experiment will be SO orchestrated that it will be indistinguishable from intelligent design. All cells perform about 200 or so necessary functions.

Is this true for all life throughout history, or is this only true for life that is the product of over 3.5 billion years of evolution?

Btw, many of the ancients, and even Europeans into the Middle Ages, believed life arose spontaneously all the time. In our age, the more we learn about life the harder abiogenesis is to support. For example, thanks to ENCODE, we've learned that our DNA not only codes for tens of thousands of genes, but contains millions of additional switches that control those genes. We are truly marvelously made.

How modern life works has nothing to do with how life originates. You might as well claim that the first human to create a weapon had to produce a stealth bomber, or it doesn't count.