Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[HARK!]

Electrical discharges into liquid matter filled with inorganic lifeforms.

Inorganic lifeforms? That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Please explain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

except that did not happen.

all they got was a few amino acids with racemized chiral orientation. which means the protein chains would never be in included in a single cell life form -- they had a "dead end". Not only could they not get to abiogenesis... they could not even get to the "bricks" needed to make the house in the first place.

They hit that "dead end" about 70 years ago and have not gotten off the dime since

They might not have gotten the results they wanted, but the Miller-Urey experiment was not the be-all-and-end-all of experiments in abiogenesis. Even looking at the wiki result on the experiment gives this:

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.[34][35]

 

[HARK!]

I honestly cannot say because I do not know.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Inorganic lifeforms? That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Please explain.

Simple mixup. I do it too often when I'm writing and it is way past midnight over here in the UK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for sharing.

At least I'm trying to add something constructive here (not to say you aren't).

 

[BobRyan]

They might not have gotten the results they wanted, but the Miller-Urey experiment was not the be-all-and-end-all of experiments

It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable. instead of everyone simply "assuming" it was proven concept -- everyone is "informed" of the road-block dead-end that they ran into.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable.

Not really since not every single scientific experiment ends in success, but future generations of scientists can easily build on an earlier failure. Such as in the example that I quoted from the wiki page on the experiment which you decided to ignore.
Which I will repeat, from the wikipedia page on the Miller-Urey experiment:

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.

 

[pitabread]

Nevermind, it was already covered...

 

[Shemjaza]

Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.

True.

Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.

I believe this is true for the YEC variety.

Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)

A lie.

The silicate and metal of most rocks isn't commonly proposed to be involved in the beginning of life.

The individual and observable chemical reactions that lead to increasingly complex organic chemicals is proposed as a mechanism for the development for the first true living replicators.

So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.

Only true in the most reductive sense.

I personally think that "doesn't have life forms on it" is far too vague to really be used as a point of agreement.

When was the Earth without life and how was it structured are very important questions that are not answered by this description.

================================ agreement #2.

But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

Since no one proposed that false statement, this is a dishonest description of any abiogenesis hypothesis.

So, another lie.

But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.

No one proposed such a concept as an "add evolution primer" to spontaneously cause the development of eukaryotes then this is a dishonest description of evolution.

Yet another lie.

And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.

Continuing your dishonesty and bad faith arguments.

Shameful.

==============================

Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.

Hopefully all can agree.

============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"

Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.

Typically when you utilize a straw man argument like this the argument should both make sense and have some passable resemble to the point you are trying to put into doubt.

You argument here is both dishonest and incompetent.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Monkeys don't take that much time to gestate. Why would it take so long to make one in the lab?

Because you're not starting with monkeys, you're starting with 'wet rocks' (early Earth environment).

It also should be pointed out that trying to repeat the evolutionary processes that occurred on Earth is unlikely to produce complex creatures with more than a vague similarity to contemporary life. IOW, you might not even get creatures like mammals.

I'll settle for a setting my sights on a simpler experiment.

How about Chara Linnaeus? What's the process for making this simple life form from inorganic matter?

If you wanted to evolve something roughly equivalent to Chara Linnaeus, you'd still need what I previously described - multicellular life didn't appear until around 750 million years ago, so you'd still be waiting ~3 billion years - assuming a replicated evolutionary process followed a similar track.

Don't forget that flask of coffee and a camping stool.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable. instead of everyone simply "assuming" it was proven concept -- everyone is "informed" of the road-block dead-end that they ran into.

If you'd like a broader and more up to date overview of current ideas about the origins of life and research into it, the Wiki Abiogenesis article is a good place to start.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its all just chemistry. If the atheist belief is that a barren planet earth would sprout prokaryotes given the correct chemical/fertilizer they would have produced it by now -- or at least try.

There are numerous research projects investigating a variety of potential abiogenesis routes, and considerable progress has been made.

 

[HARK!]

If you wanted to evolve something roughly equivalent to Chara Linnaeus, you'd still need what I previously described - multicellular life didn't appear until around 750 million years ago, so you'd still be waiting ~3 billion years - assuming a replicated evolutionary process followed a similar track.

Don't forget that flask of coffee and a camping stool.

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

Reproducibility - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

Reproducibility - Wikipedia

Reproducibility doesn't necessitate recreating the event itself though. Many things may be one-time events. In context of studying such occurrences, reproducibility can involve reproducing observational outcomes re: the event, not necessarily the event itself.

 

[HARK!]

Reproducibility doesn't necessitate recreating the event itself though. Many things may be one-time events. In context of studying such occurrences, reproducibility can involve reproducing observational outcomes re: the event, not necessarily the event itself.

The philosopher of science Karl Popper noted briefly in his famous 1934 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery that “non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science”.

Reproducibility - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

The philosopher of science Karl Popper noted briefly in his famous 1934 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery that “non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science”.

Reproducibility - Wikipedia

Is Popper talking about events or observations? IOW, what is the context of that statement?

In terms of events, there are singular events that science is most certainly interested in. Origin subjects (e.g. origin of universe, Earth, the human species) are non-reproducible events yet are of great import to science.

 

[HARK!]

Is Popper talking about events or observations? IOW, what is the context of that statement?

In terms of events, there are singular events that science is most certainly interested in. Origin subjects (e.g. origin of universe, Earth, the human species) are non-reproducible events yet are of great import to science.

We have lab environments that can reproduce any of the physical conditions required which might be required to create a simple life form, from inorganic matter. To say that this was a one time event, which can't be reproduced in a lab, is preposterous. The fact that scientists have not reproduced life through heat, electricity, and just the right combination of elements, implies that maybe there is a factor that they have overlooked. To simply state that life popped out of a stew, with absolutely nothing to back up that assertion, isn't testable, nor reproducible.

That still doesn't answer the question of what this supposed organism thrived on, as it reproduced itself, before it died off.

 

[durangodawood]

My sense on this topic is its WAY too soon to jump to conclusions about how life must have or couldnt be made.

 

[Speedwell]

We have lab environments that can reproduce any of the physical conditions required which might be required to create a simple life form, from inorganic matter. To say that this was a one time event, which can't be reproduced in a lab, is preposterous. The fact that scientists have not reproduced life through heat, electricity, and just the right combination of elements, implies that maybe there is a factor that they have overlooked. To simply state that life popped out of a stew, with absolutely nothing to back up that assertion, isn't testable, nor reproducible.

It is highly unlikely, and contradictory to hypotheses of abiogenesis now being considered, that the first life form arose directly from inorganic matter. It s also highly unlikely that it was a one-time event.

That still doesn't answer the question of what this supposed organism thrived on, as it reproduced itself, before it died off.

From the almost-living biochemicals which surrounded it and from which it emerged.

 

[HARK!]

From the almost-living biochemicals which surrounded it and from which it emerged.

Such as?