Origin of life

[Aussie Pete]

Without being alive, nothing can evolve. While this is obvious, evolutionists dismiss it as irrelevant to evolution. I'd like to offer another point of view.

The moment that life (whatever that is) ceases, the creature begins to decay. So it begins to break down into various organic components. These components logically should be precursor materials for living creatures. Apart from the mysterious substance we call life, the creature is the same as it was prior to death.

Now supposedly something, possibly lightning (according to Miller), sparked an assembly of amino acids, proteins, lipids and carbohydrates into life. I find this far fetched. Lighting is one of the most destructive forces that there is. However, let's imagine that it could cause life to arise.

The ocean teems with life but also much death. If Miller was correct, then I would imagine that a force, such as lightning, should be producing life all over the place. Lightning is incredibly commonplace.

I also note that lightning kills living creatures. Could the same bolt kill and make alive at the same time?

My questions are rhetorical. I do not believe for a minute that such a scenario is possible, let alone likely. But it is no more far fetched than OOL and evolutionary theories in general.

 

[SkyWriting]

Without being alive, nothing can evolve. While this is obvious, evolutionists dismiss it as irrelevant to evolution. I'd like to offer another point of view.

The moment that life (whatever that is) ceases, the creature begins to decay. So it begins to break down into various organic components. These components logically should be precursor materials for living creatures. Apart from the mysterious substance we call life, the creature is the same as it was prior to death.

Now supposedly something, possibly lightning (according to Miller), sparked an assembly of amino acids, proteins, lipids and carbohydrates into life. I find this far fetched. Lighting is one of the most destructive forces that there is. However, let's imagine that it could cause life to arise.

The ocean teems with life but also much death. If Miller was correct, then I would imagine that a force, such as lightning, should be producing life all over the place. Lightning is incredibly commonplace.

I also note that lightning kills living creatures. Could the same bolt kill and make alive at the same time?

My questions are rhetorical. I do not believe for a minute that such a scenario is possible, let alone likely. But it is no more far fetched than OOL and evolutionary theories in general.

My question is that people bring up the miller experiment often.....but really?
Nobody has done better work since then? What was Miller such a genius that
nobody can improve on his lightning experiment? And why has no one confirmed his findings?
I would expect a continuous storm of identical experiments. Why this is not common is likely that the original experiments were not convincing and that follow-up experiments have been too difficult and sophisticated. They just don't match well with the imagined conditions of the time.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My question is that people bring up the miller experiment often.....but really?
Nobody has done better work since then? What was Miller such a genius that
nobody can improve on his lightning experiment? And why has no one confirmed his findings?
I would expect a continuous storm of identical experiments.

The continuous research into OOL has brought exactly what Miller achieved. Nothing. 70 years give or take and no one has even come close.

The reason that lightning is suggested as a force for life is that it happens. OOL experiments still follow much the same pattern as Miller, just in vast numbers of permutations and combinations. As one OOL researcher said, OOL experiments have to be carefully designed. She backtracked when she realised what she'd said, but too late.

 

[Strathos]

Without being alive, nothing can evolve. While this is obvious, evolutionists dismiss it as irrelevant to evolution. I'd like to offer another point of view.

It's not denied, it's just barking up the wrong tree, as evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and was never meant to.

Short answer to the origin of life question is that, scientifically, we don't know. There are too many possibilities. But, even if we do one day discover the scientific explanation, that doesn't mean that God didn't cause it, just using the tools of nature that He created.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not denied, it's just barking up the wrong tree, as evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and was never meant to.

"Evolution" means change. So the origin of life is included.
Professionals call it Chemical Evolution.
Introduction: Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life

 

[SkyWriting]

Without being alive, nothing can evolve. While this is obvious, evolutionists dismiss it as irrelevant to evolution. I'd like to offer another point of view.

The moment that life (whatever that is) ceases, the creature begins to decay. So it begins to break down into various organic components. These components logically should be precursor materials for living creatures. Apart from the mysterious substance we call life, the creature is the same as it was prior to death.

Now supposedly something, possibly lightning (according to Miller), sparked an assembly of amino acids, proteins, lipids and carbohydrates into life. I find this far fetched. Lighting is one of the most destructive forces that there is. However, let's imagine that it could cause life to arise.

The ocean teems with life but also much death. If Miller was correct, then I would imagine that a force, such as lightning, should be producing life all over the place. Lightning is incredibly commonplace.

I also note that lightning kills living creatures. Could the same bolt kill and make alive at the same time?

My questions are rhetorical. I do not believe for a minute that such a scenario is possible, let alone likely. But it is no more far fetched than OOL and evolutionary theories in general.

"Life" is just a category and the specifics of it vary from expert to expert.
Slime Mold for example.

 

[Strathos]

"Evolution" means change. So the origin of life is included.
Professionals call it Chemical Evolution.
Introduction: Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life

I'm specifically referring to the theory of biological evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm specifically referring to the theory of biological evolution.

When you challenge what people say, then please be accurate.

Strathos said: ↑
It's not denied, it's just barking up the wrong tree, as evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and was never meant to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The continuous research into OOL has brought exactly what Miller achieved. Nothing. 70 years give or take and no one has even come close.

The reason that lightning is suggested as a force for life is that it happens. OOL experiments still follow much the same pattern as Miller, just in vast numbers of permutations and combinations. As one OOL researcher said, OOL experiments have to be carefully designed. She backtracked when she realised what she'd said, but too late.

The Little Bang theory.

Nothing new, just a supposed jump start of life on a smaller scale than the BB. Except they start with Gods lightening.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My question is that people bring up the miller experiment often.....but really?
Nobody has done better work since then? What was Miller such a genius that
nobody can improve on his lightning experiment? And why has no one confirmed his findings?
I would expect a continuous storm of identical experiments. Why this is not common is likely that the original experiments were not convincing and that follow-up experiments have been too difficult and sophisticated. They just don't match well with the imagined conditions of the time.

Professor James Tour has a 13 part series on OOL. You might find it enlightening. Part 1

 

[Job 33:6]

"Evolution" means change. So the origin of life is included.
Professionals call it Chemical Evolution.
Introduction: Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life

People don't bring up stellar evolution when talking about descent with modification. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that biological evolution through mutation and descent with modification is in any way dependent on the origins of life.

This is like saying that because lightning zapping a puddle of water doesn't create an antelope, that people cannot grow and live. The argument of the original post is unreasonable.

 

[SkyWriting]

People don't bring up stellar evolution when talking about descent with modification. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that biological evolution through mutation and descent with modification is in any way dependent on the origins of life.

This is like saying that because lightning zapping a puddle of water doesn't create an antelope, that people cannot grow and live. The argument of the original post is unreasonable.

Are you a publisher?

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth - Atmosphere, Life
Chemical evolution and the origin of life - PubMed
Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life as a
Chemical evolution and the origin of life | SpringerLink
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life - Scientific American

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you a publisher?

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth - Atmosphere, Life
Chemical evolution and the origin of life - PubMed
Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life as a
Chemical evolution and the origin of life | SpringerLink
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life - Scientific American

Hm?

What I'm saying is, life evolves via mutation and descent with modification.

Stellar evolution or chemical evolution and the formation of say...self replicating rna molecules in a laboratory, are much different areas of study.

And how life initially starts or how stellar evolution occurs, really are just completely different fields of study.

I'm a geologist and I see people confusing fields of science quite often. So, like I said, it's just irrational to think that topics of the origins of life or of stellar evolution might dictate whether or not darwinian evolution or the modern synthesis is true.

But further, we should also not confuse evolution of macro vertebrates, versus evolution of hadean microbes.

Again, very different topics, very different fields of study.

Another example: The first link you posted mentions the primitive Earth and atmosphere of Earth. This isnt to be confused with descent with modification.

The second link talks about interstellar mediums, again a vastly different topic than biological evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hm?

What I'm saying is, life evolves via mutation and descent with modification.

Stellar evolution or chemical evolution and the formation of say...self replicating rna molecules in a laboratory, are much different areas of study.

And how life initially starts or how stellar evolution occurs, really are just completely different fields of study.

I'm a geologist and I see people confusing fields of science quite often. So, like I said, it's just irrational to think that topics of the origins of life or of stellar evolution might dictate whether or not darwinian evolution or the modern synthesis is true.

But further, we should also not confuse evolution of macro vertebrates, versus evolution of hadean microbes.

Again, very different topics, very different fields of study.

Another example: The first link you posted mentions the primitive Earth and atmosphere of Earth. This isnt to be confused with descent with modification.

The second link talks about interstellar mediums, again a vastly different topic than biological evolution.

If you have concluded that the formation of life requires
the assistance from God then it would indeed be a separate topic.
God steps in and forms life from dirt.

But if you think the formation of life was a natural process, then
the two fields are strongly connected.

Why would life form and advance from non-living matter?
And for what reason would it continue?

 

[Job 33:6]

If you have concluded that the formation of life requires
the assistance from God then it would indeed be a separate topic.
God steps in and forms life from dirt.

But if you think the formation of life was a natural process, then
the two fields are strongly connected.

Why would life form and advance from non-living matter?
And for what reason would it continue?

Whether God formed life from dirt, or whether life formed from a natural process that didn't involve God, doesn't effect the question of if biological evolution occurs. Because biological evolution could occur, regardless of whether God created from dirt or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Whether God formed life from dirt, or whether life formed from a natural process that didn't involve God, doesn't effect the question of if biological evolution occurs. Because biological evolution could occur, regardless of whether God created from dirt or not.

But if you think the formation of life was a natural process, then
the two fields are strongly connected.

The only disconnect possible is if God interfered. So they are one and the same study.
Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics


by R Pascal · ‎Cited by 125 · ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2013 — The problem of the origin of life can be approached from two directions; from biology back or from chemistry forward.

 

[Job 33:6]

But if you think the formation of life was a natural process, then
the two fields are strongly connected.

The only disconnect possible is if God interfered. So they are one and the same study.
Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics


by R Pascal · ‎Cited by 125 · ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2013 — The problem of the origin of life can be approached from two directions; from biology back or from chemistry forward.

As I've said before, whether God created life, or didn't create life, is a separate question from whether evolution happens it doesn't happen. We can imagine broad relationships between the topics, but the answer to one does not mandate any particular answer in the other.

The reason evolutionists consider the question of if God created life or not "irrelevant" to the question of if life evolves, quite simply is because whether God created life or not, is a question that stands independently from whether or not life evolves. Much like "who baked the cake?" Is a different question from "who ate the cake". Yes, both questions relate to the story and history of life. But the outcome of one doesn't determine the outcome of the other.