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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.

If he literally thought that, it's surprising that he didn't use only lifeless rock in his experiment - but he didn't use any rock.

Perhaps he was using 'lifeless rock' as an evocative soundbite...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually it is the "contrast" between "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" vs "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".

details.

If details are so important to you, then, based on what Miller is quoted as saying, you should be claiming "a rock" not "rocks".

1. You have someone on this thread already arguing for that very thing.
2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.

Interesting that Miller didn't say it was just "a rock" that achieved everything. That's just a dishonest paraphrase on your part. You omitted the atmosphere, as well as insisting that "the Earth was a lifeless rock" is meant to be taken literally rather than as a figure of speech.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

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.

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

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

================================ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

There is unlikely any magick formula to get life in any speed we could see. it be a process that take time, the one advantage that we have is chemistry. If abiogenesis happened, it was chemistry which can happen trillions of times a day on trillion of planets. With large attempts things become inevitable to happen. It's not a case of fertilizer as much as what is there creates life given enough time.

 

[loveofourlord]

I've been experimenting with wet rocks for years.

I left my wet rocks in the sun, and the open air; but no monkeys popped out. How much heat should I use? What is the "ect" part? I want to get this experiment right.

Is that rock near things that produce material for life such as black smokers at the bottom of the ocean or other things that could provide it?

 

[Speedwell]

Well certainly I don't post that it is a "proven concept"

Neither does anyone else.

 

[BobRyan]

Is that rock near things that produce material for life such as black smokers at the bottom of the ocean or other things that could provide it?

As Stanley Miller pointed out (of the Urey-Miller experiment ) - "Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them."

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

Question: What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?

Answer: (Miller)

"I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."

 

[BobRyan]

There is unlikely any magick formula to get life in any speed we could see. it be a process that take time, the one advantage that we have is chemistry. If abiogenesis happened, it was chemistry which can happen trillions of times a day on trillion of planets. With large attempts things become inevitable to happen. It's not a case of fertilizer as much as what is there creates life given enough time.

And very few chemical reactions take billions of years to complete.

 

[BobRyan]

If details are so important to you, then, based on what Miller is quoted as saying, you should be claiming "a rock" not "rocks".
.

True but I am trying to give the atheists all the rocks they feel they may need for it, don't want to limit them to just one.

 

[BobRyan]

If he literally thought that, it's surprising that he didn't use only lifeless rock in his experiment - but he didn't use any rock.

it is his own interview report that uses that term for lifeless planet called Earth.

I am fine with that.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay. It's a fact that you are persistently and consistently misrepresenting scientific claims re: abiogenesis and evolution.

No it is not. Rather it is a false accusation in search of a fact.

Simply repeating it over and over again does not turn it into a supporting fact for the factless false accusation you are focused on so far.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Actually it is the "contrast" between
A. Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"

I'm not aware of any atheists that claim this. It appears you're once again resorting to strawman claims.

Then read the posts and be informed.

============================
from the interview with Stanley Miller

Q: Some 4.6 billion years ago the planet was a lifeless rock, a billion years later it was teeming with early forms of life. Where is the dividing line between pre-biotic and biotic Earth and how is this determined?

Answer: (Stanley Miller) :" ... A new discovery reported in the journal Nature indicates evidence for life some 300 million years before that. We presume there was life earlier, but there is no evidence beyond that point.

We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute. In early 1950's, Harold Urey suggested that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere, since all of the outer planets in our solar system- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune- have this kind of atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The Earth is clearly special in this respect, in that it contains an oxygen atmosphere which is clearly of biological origin.

Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life. If you don't make them on Earth, you have to bring them in on comets, meteorites or dust. Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life."

=============the story with no "Special evolution fertilizer" to add to the "speculations" mentioned above.

(Miller)

“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones.

If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support.

... I'm skeptical that you are going to get more than a few percent of organic compounds from comets and dust. It ultimately doesn't make much difference where it comes from. I happen to think prebiotic synthesis happened on the Earth, ...

There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.

 

[BobRyan]

Unless you can actually show someone making that claim, you made that up and are repeatedly lying about it.

you are one of those claiming it - and then asking me to prove that rocks could not do it... did you forget??

 

[loveofourlord]

As Stanley Miller pointed out (of the Urey-Miller experiment ) - "Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them."

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

Question: What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?

Answer: (Miller)

"I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."

Then why are there materials in some vents that point to life in them? :>

Can't find the article but read about this a while back. And ummmm plenty of life exists around these vents now, we have bacteria and other animals that live in and around those vents and far worse. Might want to keep updated.

 

[loveofourlord]

And very few chemical reactions take billions of years to complete.

*face paws* umm are you the kind of person that debunks evolution by saying, "We couldn't have evolved from monkeys over 7 million years, monkeys don't live that long."

You do know that life from non life wouldn't have been a single step but thousands of billions of steps, we didn't get from first life to us in a single step why would the first things resembling life to what we know as early life take a single step?

 

[SelfSim]

What is this line of question of yours all about, seriously, @BobRyan?

“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones.

Well what would Mr Miller expect? Does Mr Miller think anyone else knows?

If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support.

Agreed .. so why say that?

... I'm skeptical that you are going to get more than a few percent of organic compounds from comets and dust. It ultimately doesn't make much difference where it comes from.

How do you know that?

Honestly, how Abiogenesis occurs, is a subject of study and of testable hypotheses .. I'm as skeptical as you are .. but it seems to me you are just arguing for argument's sake?

 

[SelfSim]

Then why are there materials in some vents that point to life in them? :>

Can't find the article but read about this a while back. And ummmm plenty of life exists around these vents now, we have bacteria and other animals that live in and around those vents and far worse. Might want to keep updated.

All the vents thus far explored in detail, are located on Earth (which is life-central).
Just because some vent may exist elswhere other than on Earth, doesn't say anything much really.

 

[loveofourlord]

All the vents thus far explored in detail, are located on Earth (which is life-central).
Just because some vent may exist elswhere other than on Earth, does say anything much really.

No no, unless I'm missreading you.

I mean OUR vents have material flowing out of them from deep below that seem to indicate that may be life deeper down. it's not bacteria or such, but the waste bacteria produce. I was responding to his claim that bacteria would die from the vents.

 

[SelfSim]

No no, unless I'm missreading you.

I mean OUR vents have material flowing out of them from deep below that seem to indicate that may be life deeper down. it's not bacteria or such, but the waste bacteria produce. I was responding to his claim that bacteria would die from the vents.

Oh ok .. I misread, then.

Interesting .. I was unaware of any bacterial waste being emitted by hot undersea volcanic vents (.. perhaps chemical nutrients though?) .. I think the cooler mud volcanoes might produce waste from their underlying bacterial mats(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

it is his own interview report that uses that term for lifeless planet called Earth.

I am fine with that.

I'm fine with that too - as long as it's understood that he didn't think that the building blocks of life on Earth literally arose from lifeless rock. If that had been the case, his experiment would have involved rock, and only rock.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you are one of those claiming it - and then asking me to prove that rocks could not do it... did you forget??

When have I ever claimed that life began from simply lifeless rock alone?