Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[jhwatts]

The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory and claim this proves the idea of the origin of life. It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.

I say this for the simple fact that the experiment must be orchestrated. Any interaction from an external being removes the truly random component from the experiment. Simply by observing the experiment, touching, or measuring any part of it excludes it from being purely random. Hence the experiment becomes immeasurable and proves nothing.

I didn't realize there was a evolution sub-forum. Moderator move this if needed please.

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[EnemyOfReason]

You are not to bright in scientific matters it seems but let me explain this. Evolution is the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came about. This is called abiogenesis and by the way, DNA has already proved evolution which is why it is called a theory.

 

[jhwatts]

So obviously its safe to say that the evolution of all or any species has no dependance on a beginning or origin of life in any form.

 

[HitchSlap]

So obviously its safe to say that the evolution of all or any species has no dependance on a beginning or origin of life in any form.

I don't know, is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So obviously its safe to say that the evolution of all or any species has no dependance on a beginning or origin of life in any form.

You are more or less correct. Once the first life appeared on the Earth in the form it appeared in it was going to evolve whether its source was natural abiogenesis, planted by God, a result of a garbage dump by an alien species or even created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself. The theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life once it exists.

Meanwhile you have not provided any evidence that supports your claim. How does the observation of scientist supposedly prove abiogenesis is impossible, in the lab or otherwise?

 

[jhwatts]

My point being this. Any intervention of nonrandom interaction regardless of its form brings a system from a purely random state to a nonrandom state. What you refer to as natural(random) abiogenesis sudenly is no longer natural but now a function of the interaction from cognate human(creator).

 

[HitchSlap]

My point being this. Any intervention of nonrandom interaction regardless of its form brings a system from a purely random state to a nonrandom state. What you refer to as natural(random) abiogenesis sudenly is no longer natural but now a dependent of a interaction from cognate human(creator).

Point taken.

 

[RealityCheck]

My point being this. Any intervention of nonrandom interaction regardless of its form brings a system from a purely random state to a nonrandom state. What you refer to as natural(random) abiogenesis sudenly is no longer natural but now a function of the interaction from cognate human(creator).

So? We recreate random processes in labs all the time.

 

[jhwatts]

We can but can only produce expected values of outcomes and probabilities within a specific range of the true value. We never actually produce a true result of the process, that is if the process is truly random.

Regardless. Any interaction from a outsider removes it from a natural state to a state that has some dependance on the outsider.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope. We only produce expected values and probabilities within a specific range of the true value. We never actually produce a true value, that is if the process is truly random.

Can you devise a test in which observed results are random?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point being this. Any intervention of nonrandom interaction regardless of its form brings a system from a purely random state to a nonrandom state. What you refer to as natural(random) abiogenesis sudenly is no longer natural but now a function of the interaction from cognate human(creator).

The problem for you is that abiogenesis was not a random process.

 

[Strathos]

If abiogenesis is recreated in a laboratory it would lend to support to the idea of it happening naturally if the laboratory conditions were the same as the primordial earth and it happened via processes that could have happened back then.

 

[jhwatts]

Can you devise a test in which observed results are random?

Nope, not truly random. This is really the same reason why in mathematics it is impossible to produce a truly random number.

 

[jhwatts]

The problem for you is that abiogenesis was not a random process.

Oh, so now we agree if it is not truly random it must have been organized.

 

[jhwatts]

If abiogenesis is recreated in a laboratory it would lend to support to the idea of it happening naturally if the laboratory conditions were the same as the primordial earth and it happened via processes that could have happened back then.

My point being they can never be truly the same because of experimenters involvement. That is why it can never prove anything.

 

[jhwatts]

My long term goal here is to show life creation can never be truly a random process.

 

[Shemjaza]

My long term goal here is to show life creation can never be truly a random process.

Fair enough, but demonstrating that something isn't random doesn't imply that it's consciously controlled.

Things falling down isn't random, but the force of gravity can hardly be considered intelligent.

 

[Chany]

My long term goal here is to show life creation can never be truly random process.

In science, there really isn't anything that's a truly random process.

 

[jhwatts]

If it is not truly random then it must have been organized in some fashion.

We are about to move into the wonderful world of statistical mechanics. Please explain to me how there are no truely random process in nature before we get there.

S=k*ln(W)