Origin of Life

[Anguspure]

Discounted how exactly? The experiment accomplished what it set out: demonstrating the formation of amino acids from chemical precursors.

That it in anyway demonstrates the formation of biological origins without the involvement of intelligent agents (as is most commonly waved around) has been well discredited.
The chemical precursors were incorrect, the compounds formed were in not representative, and the experiment was designed and guided by intelligent agents.

 

[pitabread]

That it in anyway demonstrates the formation of biological origins without the involvement of intelligent agents (as is most commonly waved around) has been well discredited.
The chemical precursors were incorrect, the compounds formed were in not representative, and the experiment was designed and guided by intelligent agents.

Claiming that the experiment was designed by "intelligent agents" is a rather silly objection. That's the nature of experiments. But it's not like they sat there hand-assembling each amino acid; the amino acids formed on their own based on the environmental conditions of the experiment.

As for the rest, there has been debate over the conditions of the early Earth and how representative this experiment would be with respect to those conditions. But that's splitting hairs. The experiment demonstrated what it sought to demonstrate; the formation of amino acids from chemical precursors. There is no denying that and its importance in the place of abiogenesis research.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since the cells irreducible complexity requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work. Since the probability of such an arrangement emerging by chemical evolution by chance is virtually 0 we have to conclude that it is a product of a Creator.

"The picture of the cell provided by modern molecular biology has led scientists to redefine the question of the origin of life. The discovery of lifes information processing systems, with their elaborate functional integration of proteins and nucleic acids, has made it clear that scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the origin of at least three key features of life.

1) they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNAs capacity to store digitally encoded information.
2) they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA.
3) they must explain the origin of the integrated complexity - the functional interdependence of the parts- of the cells information - processing system." Meyer Signature in the Cell

Various attempts have been made by atheistic evolutionists / abiogenesis proponents to justify their commitment, by blind faith, to the improbable possibility that the cell evolved from chemicals by chance.

1) random molecular interactions
2) lawlike forces (necessity)
3) a combination of necessity and chance

However the probability of the complex specificity of function and sequence, organisation and appearance of intelligence, that we can observe in the cell, emerging by chance is so low as to render these attempts completely preposterous

The problem with origins isn't so much irreducibly complexity but more the fact that the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science. Now once life starts then evolution happens but the Scriptures are clear that God created life, fully formed and reproductive. At every vital node of the Darwinian tree of life their are insurmountable cause and effect explanations required and Darwinism has failed in this respect at every level.

Bottom line the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science, for that you need metaphysics. What it take through naturalistic causes are virtually meaningless until you realize that core issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

The problem with origins isn't so much irreducibly complexity but more the fact that the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science. Now once life starts then evolution happens but the Scriptures are clear that God created life, fully formed and reproductive. At every vital node of the Darwinian tree of life their are insurmountable cause and effect explanations required and Darwinism has failed in this respect at every level.

Bottom line the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science, for that you need metaphysics. What it take through naturalistic causes are virtually meaningless until you realize that core issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

What metaphysics tells us is that a phenomenon which is shown to have a fully explanatory natural cause is not thereby denied a divine one. The notion that a naturalistic evolution or a naturalistic abiogenesis denies divine creation is fatuous.

 

[Chesterton]

Not really, when you consider the existence of hermaphroditism.

Can a hermaphrodite reproduce itself by itself?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can a hermaphrodite reproduce itself by itself?

Some do.

"Lots of animals are able to self-fertilize..."

 

[Anguspure]

Claiming that the experiment was designed by "intelligent agents" is a rather silly objection. That's the nature of experiments. But it's not like they sat there hand-assembling each amino acid; the amino acids formed on their own based on the environmental conditions of the experiment.

Nevertheless Intelligent Design played an integral part of the formation of the resultant compounds, which were then used extensively to promote the idea that life can originate through non-intelligent causes.
It is a bit like having set off a land slide in a quarry in Australia, catching some brown rocks in a wheel barrow, and then proclaiming that this is how the Boeing Dreamliner originated.

The experiment demonstrated what it sought to demonstrate; the formation of amino acids from chemical precursors.

Nobody denies this. It is in accordance with what anybody might expect, that the combination of certain elements in certain ways results in the formation of certain compounds.

There is no denying that and its importance in the place of abiogenesis research.

It is indeed important, but it does nothing to undermine the importance of Creative Intelligence in the equation either.
That it was used in this way is deceptive.

 

[Gene2memE]

Nevertheless Intelligent Design played an integral part of the formation of the resultant compounds, which were then used extensively to promote the idea that life can originate through non-intelligent causes.
It is a bit like having set off a land slide in a quarry in Australia, catching some brown rocks in a wheel barrow, and then proclaiming that this is how the Boeing Dreamliner originated.

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing like that at all. You do yourself and your argument a disservice by such a silly analogy. That, or you've completely mis-understood the point of the experiment.

Miller-Urey and similar experiments use of "intelligent design" was to attempt to simulate early earth atmospheres and conditions. They were investigating if the conditions of earth's early atmosphere were favourable to the creation of amino-acids, which are the basis for the underlying organic chemistry of life.

The intelligence in this case was applied to replicate natural conditions and see if amino acids could form in such conditions. That is, that organic compounds could be formed spontaneously, without active intervention.

That it was used in this way is deceptive.

There is nothing deceptive about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn't get early atmosphere's correct, and the evidence is now is that life more probably began in water rather than in the atmosphere, but there's nothing deceptive - their original experiments, and umpteen repeats and variations of it, are available instantly with a basic Google search. They did what they set out to do - to investigate whether the complex organic compounds could be naturally produced from simpler inorganic precursors.

 

[Silmarien]

The problem with origins isn't so much irreducibly complexity but more the fact that the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science. Now once life starts then evolution happens but the Scriptures are clear that God created life, fully formed and reproductive. At every vital node of the Darwinian tree of life their are insurmountable cause and effect explanations required and Darwinism has failed in this respect at every level.

Bottom line the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science, for that you need metaphysics. What it take through naturalistic causes are virtually meaningless until you realize that core issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

If abiogenesis is true, I would say that the chemical evolution that eventually resulted in life very much is a scientific question. And one that we do have the tools to explore empirically.

Now, as far as metaphysics go, I think it's appropriate to ask what the nature of reality is that life was ever possible at all, especially if we aren't inclined to handwave away intentionality and consciousness, but philosophy does itself no favors by trying to arbitrarily restrict what science can and cannot study. When scientific naturalism rears its head, I call foul, but not before.

 

[mindlight]

The problem with origins isn't so much irreducibly complexity but more the fact that the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science. Now once life starts then evolution happens but the Scriptures are clear that God created life, fully formed and reproductive. At every vital node of the Darwinian tree of life their are insurmountable cause and effect explanations required and Darwinism has failed in this respect at every level.

Bottom line the subject of origins is beyond the reach of science, for that you need metaphysics. What it take through naturalistic causes are virtually meaningless until you realize that core issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Well of course I agree with that cause like you I am a Creationist and do not think that the speculative use of empiricist methodology is of any use where conclusions cannot be demonstrated with repeatable experiments. The fact is that the cell cannot be created from chemicals by the most intelligent scientists of our age let alone by an undirected natural process taking billions of years. Miller reproduced some amino acids using electricity and various chemicals but that is the limit of what modern scientists can do. Amino acids are constituent parts not the life itself. At the end of the day even in the simplest of biological phenomena - the cell - there is a specified complexity of form, arrangement and intrinsic information that requires for its creation a host of things to happen that are completely improbable by mere chance even allowing for what we know of the laws of chemistry. God did create single celled organisms but I agree with you most of life did not evolve from these but was rather created as it is. There is simply not time and possibility to consider the abiogenesis idea to be considered remotely feasible and then we have the separate impossibility of macroevolution differentiating the various kinds of creatures we can see and observe today by a process of natural selection from an evolving common ancestor.

 

[mindlight]

Nope. IC has not yet been demonstrated to be a valid concept with respect to biology.



Except we don't have enough information to make a legitimate probability calculation given that we don't (and likely never will) be able to account for all possible variables.

Trying to refute origin of life scenarios via probability is woefully misguided.

Creating biological life from chemical reactions is what we are talking about here. I agree that we do not know all the variables. We cannot even create a single cell using what we know of chemical laws. Indeed given the required and diverse complexity in the finished organism it seems completely unlikely that the host of improbable components that are required (each of them unlikely) should all be formed simultaneously and come together to form life in an instance. Since we as intelligent actors are not even capable of this feat why would we believe that chance and nature could do the magic even given unlimited time spans. It is improbable that undirected natural processes can do what the most advanced scientists of our age are unable to do. We even know the final structure and all the required components are also known to us and could be used as a template for our efforts. But still we are unable to create what we can see.

 

[mindlight]

Thing is, a modern cell is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. The very first replicators would have been relatively simple - perhaps just single strands of RNA, perhaps without even a cell wall (there are many hypotheses being researched - 'RNA World' is a popular subset). Comparing them with modern cells is like comparing a sled with the latest Audi A4.

Yes I understand the difference in complexity between a sled and an Audi. Neither of these could conceivably spontaneously appear in nature. The sled for example has metal and wooden elements. Even if we could believe that igneous processes could somehow form the metal and then mould it to form the required struts etc at high temperature any wood that needed to be precisely fitted to the top of the sled would be burnt up by those same processes. Even I if I add in some improbable chance occurrences like the metal sled is formed inside a volcano and then thrown by a volcanic eruption into a wood. The wood is fitted onto the metal by monkeys in the trees and carried by a giant bird back to the volcano where multiple red hot metal screws needed to fasten the wood to the metal frame are screwed on by freak convection currents hurling the preformed metal screws in a whirlwind pattern to screw them on!!!! Having being thus fitted the sled is ejected by one final volcanic blast which leaves no burn marks!!!!. So even the simplest form of transport in your illustration seems completely unlikely by purely natural processes to the precision that we see in the picture above. Given that the biological cell is all the more complex the specificity of function, arrangement and information that is required to make it work seems a completely unlikely result of undirected natural processes.

 

[mindlight]

What metaphysics tells us is that a phenomenon which is shown to have a fully explanatory natural cause is not thereby denied a divine one. The notion that a naturalistic evolution or a naturalistic abiogenesis denies divine creation is fatuous.

The idea being that the Divine action and observable natural processes are two sides of the same coin.

But consider for a moment that naturalistic observations of chemistry and biology of creatures are all spot on. Would it be possible for God Almighty in a single day to create all life and by a process of differentiation from his basic design for life (which scientists observe as common descent) then create the distinct life forms that we see today and in the fossil record. It would not require billions of years, it would not be an undirected process and no natural selection would be required. But these are all unproven assumptions about how the process works anyway. The facts about the creatures and fossils we have access to would be the same. But the explanatory paradigm would have completely altered our perspective on all that we see. This is the essential difference between a Creationist and an evolutionist. The facts are not the issue here it is as you say a metaphysical problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

I shall be willing to participate in this discussion with those arguing against a natural origin of life once they have confirmed they have read, studied and understood the work of Stuart Kauffman. Of course, once they have done so they are unlikely to be arguing against a natural origin of life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well of course I agree with that cause like you I am a Creationist and do not think that the speculative use of empiricist methodology is of any use where conclusions cannot be demonstrated with repeatable experiments. The fact is that the cell cannot be created from chemicals by the most intelligent scientists of our age let alone by an undirected natural process taking billions of years. Miller reproduced some amino acids using electricity and various chemicals but that is the limit of what modern scientists can do. Amino acids are constituent parts not the life itself. At the end of the day even in the simplest of biological phenomena - the cell - there is a specified complexity of form, arrangement and intrinsic information that requires for its creation a host of things to happen that are completely improbable by mere chance even allowing for what we know of the laws of chemistry. God did create single celled organisms but I agree with you most of life did not evolve from these but was rather created as it is. There is simply not time and possibility to consider the abiogenesis idea to be considered remotely feasible and then we have the separate impossibility of macroevolution differentiating the various kinds of creatures we can see and observe today by a process of natural selection from an evolving common ancestor.

What I'm getting these days is the RNA world hypothesis, but RNA would never survive the primordial world. The world was covered with water and darkness, thick clouds from the hydrogen rich (reducing atmosphere) didn't allow in light. The waters were literally boiling hot and without RNA and DNA producing proteins and molecular mechanisms with a high degree of specificity and organization life simple isn't going to exist. Just a cursory look at cellular architecture give you a pretty good idea of the enormous burden of proof that remains completely unanswered. God created life, fully formed about 6000 years ago. The rise of life from some presently unknown and ultimately incomprehensible naturalistic processes remains a modern mythology fabricated by secular academics.

 

[pitabread]

Nevertheless Intelligent Design played an integral part of the formation of the resultant compounds, which were then used extensively to promote the idea that life can originate through non-intelligent causes.

This isn't what the Intelligent Design movement postulates when it comes to life's origins.

You're really stretching the concept of ID here.

It is a bit like having set off a land slide in a quarry in Australia, catching some brown rocks in a wheel barrow, and then proclaiming that this is how the Boeing Dreamliner originated.

This analogy doesn't even make a lick of sense.

It is indeed important, but it does nothing to undermine the importance of Creative Intelligence in the equation either.

Again, the only "creative intelligence" involved was setting up the conditions of the experiment to recreate what was considered at the time to be representative of early Earth.

If you're going to redefine "intelligent design" to mean "scientific experiment", then you've completed neutered the definition as typically used by ID proponents.

That it was used in this way is deceptive.

No idea what deception you are talking about.

 

[pitabread]

Indeed given the required and diverse complexity in the finished organism it seems completely unlikely that the host of improbable components that are required (each of them unlikely) should all be formed simultaneously and come together to form life in an instance.

Good thing nobody thinks the first living organism just "formed simultaneously". You're arguing a strawman here.

It is improbable that undirected natural processes can do what the most advanced scientists of our age are unable to do.

You should read up on evolutionary algorithms and their use in industrial design, computer engineering and so on. They sometimes come up with solutions that are un-intuitive and more complex than a human designer could otherwise deliberately design. IMHO, it's quite fascinating how a recursive process combined with basic physical principles can product complex results.

Here is one such example: On the Origin of Circuits

 

[Larniavc]

Since the cells irreducible complexity requires

This where I stopped reading.

 

[xianghua]

Read about the Miller-Urey experiment and the work of Juan Oro. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (of which RNA and DNA are composed) have been created experimentally from simple compounds by purely natural processes. That's still quite a ways from knowing how life appeared, but it's a first step.

and still- amino acids arent proteins(and even DNA bases are difficult to produce even in the lab by the way). so we need to calculate what is the chance to evolve a functional protein from a random sequence. so the miller-urey experiments is irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

No, it's an abstraction of part of a biological system.

ok. so here is a paper that check it at the single protein level:

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

the same result- we need a big part of the protein to perform its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise.