Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[ChetSinger]

Keep in mind that even if it could be supported by experimentation, it really wouldn't falsify the concept of God, or the concept that God is a *necessary ingredient* for life. It wouldn't even be likely to demonstrate that the process was *accidental* since they will have to go out of their way to setup *exactly* the right conditions in the first place.

Even single celled organisms show signs of 'intelligent' behaviors. Where does 'awareness' (if nothing but environment) even come from in a single celled organism?

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner -- ScienceDaily
#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | DiscoverMagazine.com

For all we know, "awareness" itself is an *intrinsic* part of "nature". Without that intrinsic feature of nature/God, life and awareness as we understand it may not even be able to figure out how to manifest itself inside the myriad of physical forms that we can physically relate to.

Ultimately even the concept of abiogenesis is not a threat to theism, particularly any *natural* brand of theism.

I agree with you. Natural abiogenesis wouldn't negate God any more than natural lakes negate man-made ones.

But I do think the bar is too high for abiogenesis to occur, so I think the existence of life is evidence of God.

 

[Michael]

I agree with you. Natural abiogenesis wouldn't negate God any more than natural lakes negate man-made ones.

But I do think the bar is too high for abiogenesis to occur, so I think the existence of life is evidence of God.

I agree with you on both points. I would actually 'assume' that life formed "naturally" since I believe God to be the single most natural thing in nature, and I believe that God interacts with us all quite "naturally" in every moment of every day.

Atheists seem to "assume" that abiogenesis theory is the exclusive domain of atheism, but of course it's not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.

When you lack clear evidence you turn to analogy, mate?

.

Please read the discussion history before posting ignorant comments.

The analogy is very valid. The freezer creates a controlled environment (artificially cold). What happens to water inside that controlled environment is exactly what happens to water in nature when it finds itself in a cold environment: it turns into ice.

The freezer is an analogy for a scientific experiment concerning abiogenesis.

It's a response to the rather naive notion that if science one day succeeds in setting up an experiment in which non-life turns into life, that it would only prove that "intelligence" is required to make life, because "intelligence" was required to set up the experiment.

The exact same logic applies to water turning into ice in a freezer.
If the abiogenesis experiment "proves" that intelligence is required to make life, then a freezer "proves" that intelligence is required to make water freeze into ice.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Belk]

I agree with you on both points. I would actually 'assume' that life formed "naturally" since I believe God to be the single most natural thing in nature, and I believe that God interacts with us all quite "naturally" in every moment of every day.

Atheists seem to "assume" that abiogenesis theory is the exclusive domain of atheism, but of course it's not.

Seems to me a lot more Christians assume that then Atheists. At least if the number of creationists that try to use it as a point against evolution are to be believed.

 

[Michael]

Seems to me a lot more Christians assume that then Atheists. At least if the number of creationists that try to use it as a point against evolution are to be believed.

You may have a valid point there.

 

[[serious]]

I agree with you. Natural abiogenesis wouldn't negate God any more than natural lakes negate man-made ones.

But I do think the bar is too high for abiogenesis to occur, so I think the existence of life is evidence of God.

False dilemma. You assume that if it isn't naturally occurring, it must be supernatural. Let's assume, for the moment, that you can adequately defend the idea that life as it exists on earth could not have arisen without a designer. This, by the way, you have not adequately defended, but let's run with it. Why must one assume that the designer must be supernatural? Why not instead assume that life was seeded on earth by an alien species of such biology or origins that they could have arisen naturally?

 

[loveofourlord]

That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.

Don't need experiments again, it's just common sense, that the earliest life would have been simpler, and less complicated, and even if there is X proteins and such that are required for a living thing to be living, doesn't preclude that before that point when it didn't have those things it couldn't still do certain things but not be life. No one claims that early life before cross genetic transfers and such could be even as close to as complicated as now, nor even have to be.

 

[loveofourlord]

Random is a funny word. Things occur that we call random events, but they are actually the result of numerous factors. This neither proves or disproves the existence of a greater power, i.e. deity.

Abiogenesis may or may not have occurred on earth, but humans inventing new life from scratch would lend support that it occurred naturally in the past. This neither adds or subtracts from the idea of life evolves yesterday and today.

Also if abiogenesis happened to be by processes that have a eventual outcome of some kind, as it's been mentioned just like hydrogen and water coming together, the chances of them interacting is random, but when they interact it's inevitable they form water molecules if right circumstances.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are not to bright in scientific matters

Not TOO bright. If you're going to flame someone and insult their intelligence, you could at least spell it correctly.

Evolution is the origin of species not the origin of life.

More accurately, evolution is a theory of common descent beginning with a single original progenitor. Most evolutionists are smart enough to realize that abiogenesis is impossible, even if they can't grasp that universal common descent is impossible.

DNA has already proved evolution

Haven't you heard? Nothing is ever proven in science. DNA shows similarities of genetic composition. Common descent is only one way of explaining the similarities.

 

[ChetSinger]

Don't need experiments again, it's just common sense, that the earliest life would have been simpler, and less complicated, and even if there is X proteins and such that are required for a living thing to be living, doesn't preclude that before that point when it didn't have those things it couldn't still do certain things but not be life. No one claims that early life before cross genetic transfers and such could be even as close to as complicated as now, nor even have to be.

Such suppositions may satisfy you, but they don't satisfy me.

Since your moniker identifies you as a Christian, are you cool with the phrase "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? That what we see around us is credited to the creative will of God?

 

[ChetSinger]

False dilemma. You assume that if it isn't naturally occurring, it must be supernatural. Let's assume, for the moment, that you can adequately defend the idea that life as it exists on earth could not have arisen without a designer. This, by the way, you have not adequately defended, but let's run with it. Why must one assume that the designer must be supernatural? Why not instead assume that life was seeded on earth by an alien species of such biology or origins that they could have arisen naturally?

Being a Christian, are you good with Jesus Christ being called the Author of Life?

 

[[serious]]

Being a Christian, are you good with Jesus Christ being called the Author of Life?

Sure. I don't see that as conflicting with his use of natural processes though.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.

Is anyone claiming that abiogenesis has to produce a modern bacterium? No.

We can use modern cities as an analogy. In a city like New York, if you turn off the electricity the city ceases to function. Does that mean that every city throughout history had to have electricity? No. What has happened is that after the invention of electricity the functions in the city became dependent on that invention. Whereas once the city could do without electricity, now it can't. Evolution is the same. New functions are at first helpful, and then further evolutionary adaptations become reliant on that new function to the point that removal of that new function is deleterious. This was first described by Muller in 1918:

"thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." --Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, does a freezer also show that it requires "great intelligence" to turn water into ice?
Think about that for a few seconds before responding.
See if you manage to see the obvious.

You may be thinkin of the RonCo Life-O-Matic.

And if ice led to the formation of life.....or in that direction...it would be a great point. ICE BRAINS would be a perfect example of what I'd give you some credit for. But ice brains or ice life or ice slime molds are not there to make your case. Or ice processes that that convert dead material toward the direction of RNA would be good.
Give it your best shot.

 

[loveofourlord]

Such suppositions may satisfy you, but they don't satisfy me.

Since your moniker identifies you as a Christian, are you cool with the phrase "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? That what we see around us is credited to the creative will of God?

I go where the evidence leads, and while I'm not 100% convinced on Abiogenesis, I also don't stick my head in the sand and pretend that process isn't possible. At no point in history has rejecting the posability of something helped religion. Evolution is a fact, and alot of information points towards abiogenesis, if it's false, the actual claims will be proven false, not a strawman.

If you think some how abiogenesis requires modern bacteria then your not going to do anything towards disproving or proving it. All you end up doing is making stupid false statements, that anyone that knows anything about the subject is just going to laugh. Look at evolution and how just about every argument I see from creationists is based upon false ideas about evolution, and I can't take any of their arguments seriously.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look at evolution and how just about every argument I see from creationists is based upon false ideas about evolution, and I can't take any of their arguments seriously.

Here's some you can check. Science can only make predictions
about future events. All inference about the past is philosophy.
There is no such thing as "scientific history" though educated
people pretend it exists. Origins theory is one such hoax.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here's some you can check. Science can only make predictions
about future events. All inference about the past is philosophy.
There is no such thing as "scientific history" though educated
people pretend it exists. Origins theory is one such hoax.

Would you agree that generally physics and many life mechanisms such as DNA are relatively constant?

 

[SkyWriting]

We can use modern cities as an analogy. In a city like New York, if you turn off the electricity the city ceases to function. Does that mean that every city throughout history had to have electricity? No. What has happened is that after the invention of electricity the functions in the city became dependent on that invention. Whereas once the city could do without electricity, now it can't. Evolution is the same. New functions are at first helpful, and then further evolutionary adaptations become reliant on that new function to the point that removal of that new function is deleterious. This was first described by Muller in 1918:"thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." --Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.

If you've ever built a machine from scratch, you know it's no walk in the park. Now remove half your brain and do it again. Now remove another half and do it again. You may enlist the entire population of the globe in this experiment. But leave one person who will conclude that "stupid" can't do squat. Thanks, and good luck.


I worked in a place with suspected mutagens. Can anyone explain why we avoid them?

 

[ebia]

Here's some you can check. Science can only make predictions about future events. All inference about the past is philosophy. There is no such thing as "scientific history" though educated people pretend it exists. Origins theory is one such hoax.

The same inferences that we can use to make predictions we can to make inferences about the past; in fact we can do better with the past than the future. If it's unreasonable to assume consistency in the past it's unreasonable to assume it in the future. The physics of aerodynamics might change at any second - for pity's sake don't get on an aeroplane.

 

[loveofourlord]

Here's some you can check. Science can only make predictions
about future events. All inference about the past is philosophy.
There is no such thing as "scientific history" though educated
people pretend it exists. Origins theory is one such hoax.

See right here shows I can completly dismiss anything else you say as it's just creationish jiberish that no one with a education and actual knowledge of what science is and how it works will accept, so not sure what you think you can acomplish, you don't get to define science because you don't like it's outcomes.