Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[[serious]]

I thought it was, too, but I guess for some folks it wasn't. Here it is:




I thought RealityCheck's example wasn't a good one because lotteries are engineered and the outcomes are statistically predictable. Abiogenesis is not engineered, and if a positive outcome is statistically predictable at all, it's remote because the boundaries of the selection space are the age of the universe and the number of atoms contained within it. You can't just "add more people" and make a positive outcome more likely; we've already estimated the age of the universe and the number of atoms it contains.

Hope that clears things up.

Ok, Let's look at a deck of cards that some one drops. The cards go everywhere and get completely randomized. What are the odds of any specific order of the cards? 8.06581752e67 to 1. however, when you pick them up, they will be in that specific order. In hind sight saying that one specific order is unlikely is irrelevant. That's essentially what arguments of "the specific type of life that developed on earth is unlikely" boil down to in the most forgiving interpretation. Some specific sequence that, in retrospect, was special happened. Are there other ways it all could have happened? Yes! at a minimum if the chirality of everything was flipped (everything was switched left hand to right hand or vice versa) life would work just as well. We don't even have a reasonable way of estimating how many alternate systems exist. It's like that deck of cards was in some order that let you win a game, the rules of which you don't entirely understand. Maybe every 5th card happens to be a prime when you picked them up and every 6th card is a spade and that's why you won this round. But is that the only way to win? You don't know. Now imagine you don't know how many people are playing that game. You don't see anyone one else in your room playing, but for all you know there could be 10 other people in the country playing. or 100,000 people. Or no one else playing. Now let's say you don't know how many countries there are. You are physically prevented from checking because of oceans you can't cross in the way. You haven't won since that first win, but you have amnesia up until the first win (which was cured as part of the reward for winning) so you don't know how many times you lost prior to it. So, how much does it mean that you haven't won since? Does that mean the deck of cards was put in a specific order by a supernatural being? does it mean that you were that one guy out of millions who won that particular lottery? Who knows?

 

[Loudmouth]

We would also have to factor in things like temperature and various other environmental possibilities. It's not just the atoms within the organism itself that have to be arranged just right, but also the environment itself, including relative stability. I'm not sure how one would even begin to go about computing such odds.

Exactly. That is why the probabilistic argument against abiogenesis is such a misguided one. All it boils down to is personal incredulity, not a real mathematical or physics based probability.

 

[Michael]

Exactly. That is why the probabilistic argument against abiogenesis is such a misguided one. All it boils down to is personal incredulity, not a real mathematical or physics based probability.

I'd have to agree with you on that point, and note that the same issue applies to the concept of Boltzmann brains. If you allow for the spontaneous formation of microscopic organisms, you have to allow for the possibility of macroscopic life forms as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd have to agree with you on that point, and note that the same issue applies to the concept of Boltzmann brains. If you allow for the spontaneous formation of microscopic organisms, you have to allow for the possibility of macroscopic life forms as well.

Once you claim that one does exist, and that you communicate with it, then it is incumbent upon you to supply evidence to back those claims.

 

[Michael]

Once you claim that one does exist, and that you communicate with it, then it is incumbent upon you to supply evidence to back those claims.

The fact I'm not the first guy in human history, nor the only one my generation to make such a claim is itself a form of 'evidence' IMO. It's not exactly an 'uncommon' occurrence.

What kind of evidence of macroscopic forms of awareness would you even consider accepting?

 

[Davian]

Not TOO bright. If you're going to flame someone and insult their intelligence, you could at least spell it correctly.

You do speak from experience.

More accurately, evolution is a theory of common descent beginning with a single original progenitor. Most evolutionists are smart enough to realize that abiogenesis is impossible, even if they can't grasp that universal common descent is impossible.

As you have yet to demonstrate this impossibility, this dissembles to an insult of the intelligence of those that do not agree with you.

Haven't you heard? Nothing is ever proven in science.

True, but in the vernacular, "prove" can be taken to mean "to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc." (Merriam-Webster). Science can do that.

DNA shows similarities of genetic composition. Common descent is only one way of explaining the similarities.

And it is the one way that explains these similarities in a testable, falsifiable manner. Theology cannot do that, can it?

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact I'm not the first guy in human history, nor the only one my generation to make such a claim is itself a form of 'evidence' IMO.

Zero evidence plus zero evidence is still zero evidence.

What kind of evidence of macroscopic forms of awareness would you even consider accepting?

The same type of evidence that you would need in order to accept that I have a brother named Nathan. It's not that tough. A being moving things about and talking so that everyone can hear them would be a good first move. Seems pretty simple. Beings that only exist in your head are not up to snuff.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'd have to agree with you on that point, and note that the same issue applies to the concept of Boltzmann brains. If you allow for the spontaneous formation of microscopic organisms, you have to allow for the possibility of macroscopic life forms as well.

Not necessarily. It would be like comparing pouring a bunch of Legos on the floor, observing instances in which two or three of them happen to stick together, and thinking that it is likely that, should you do this with another box of untampered Legos enough would stick together to form the shape of an airplane.

 

[Michael]

Zero evidence plus zero evidence is still zero evidence.

You have a very unusual concept of evidence IMO. On one hand you seem to bypass the need for demonstrated cause/effect relationships when it comes to your impotent on Earth sky thingies. On the other hand, you blatantly reject human testimony of contact with something they call "God". It sure *seem* rather hypocritical from the outside looking in. Care to explain that huge double standard as it relates to "evidence"?

The same type of evidence that you would need in order to accept that I have a brother named Nathan. It's not that tough. A being moving things about and talking so that everyone can hear them would be a good first move. Seems pretty simple. Beings that only exist in your head are not up to snuff.

That last line is a *riot* from a guy that has *three* invisible friends in their cosmology beliefs. The whole inflation deity exists only in the heads of Lambda-CDM proponents and has no tangible effect on anyone on Earth.

Like I said, you're need for demonstrating cause/effect relationships as it relates to the topic of God stands in stark contrast to your astronomy beliefs where apparently 'any invisible thing goes' as long as you say so.

 

[Michael]

Not necessarily. It would be like comparing pouring a bunch of Legos on the floor, observing instances in which two or three of them happen to stick together, and thinking that it is likely that, should you do this with another box of untampered Legos enough would stick together to form the shape of an airplane.

That sort of points us back to his original comment:

Exactly. That is why the probabilistic argument against abiogenesis is such a misguided one. All it boils down to is personal incredulity, not a real mathematical or physics based probability.

An argument based on personal incredulity really doesn't cut it in the final analysis. Given an infinite amount of time, pretty much *anything* can happen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That sort of points us back to his original comment:

An argument based on personal incredulity really doesn't cut it in the final analysis. Given an infinite amount of time, pretty much *anything* can happen.

ah, but here is what happens, you dont use a new box of Legos every time, but you put all the original ones back together and keep shaking and pouring and repeating. eventually you can end up with a bunch of Legos stuck together in a complex way, but it takes so long that spontaneous generation of macroscopic organisms is pretty much impossible while abiogenesis of very simple microbes is possible, because the chances of you shaking that box the first time and having a couple stick together is by far more likely than having something complex right off the bat. the continued shaking and pouring cycle is an allegory to the development of more complex cells which would eventually become the first life on earth.

 

[Heissonear]

Indeed! However just because abiogenesis has not found how life began does not mean it never will. Science is an ongoing quest for knowledge. Give it time!

.

And you once questioned that Naturalism was based on faith, what you put your trust in, and not evidence alone. These are your words, chap.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Does it require intelligence to turn water into ice?

You never responded to the analogy of the freezer.

.
Dogma,

You are lost in inherent physical properties. And as a simpleton.

When are you going to wake up to the Spiritual Realm? Like other Naturalists you act like its not there. You ignore it. However, its activity is higher life in our midst. You are ignoring what They are up to! Does deception and wise in your own eyes ring any bells of what is happening around you every moment?

.

 

[Heissonear]

False dilemma. You assume that if it isn't naturally occurring, it must be supernatural. Let's assume, for the moment, that you can adequately defend the idea that life as it exists on earth could not have arisen without a designer. This, by the way, you have not adequately defended, but let's run with it. Why must one assume that the designer must be supernatural? Why not instead assume that life was seeded on earth by an alien species of such biology or origins that they could have arisen naturally?

.

For all the time on earth you have had your knowledge of the Spiritual Realm in your midst is equivalent to zero. That is not good, mate.

For all of the things to learn in this life the Spiritual Dynamics is most important. It is eternal, the beings are eternal, and what is going on far more important than things people do and learn in the physical and through the five senses.

When are you going to find this out?

 

[PsychoSarah]

.

For all the time on earth you have had your knowledge of the Spiritual Realm in your midst is equivalent to zero. That is not good, mate.

For all of the things to learn in this life the Spiritual Dynamics is most important. It is eternal, the beings are eternal, and what is going on far more important than things people do and learn in the physical and through the five senses.

When are you going to find this out?

Humans have more than 5 senses.

 

[Davian]

You have a very unusual concept of evidence IMO. On one hand you seem to bypass the need for demonstrated cause/effect relationships when it comes to your impotent on Earth sky thingies.

Again with the inadequacies of your... lab. It is too small.

On the other hand, you blatantly reject human testimony of contact with something they call "God". It sure *seem* rather hypocritical from the outside looking in. Care to explain that huge double standard as it relates to "evidence"?

Can you name anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination?

 

[mzungu]

.

And you once questioned that Naturalism was based on faith, what you put your trust in, and not evidence alone. These are your words, chap.

.

Wrong! We do not have faith in science; we ACCEPT science. BIG difference.

What's with the British slang?

 

[Michael]

ah, but here is what happens, you dont use a new box of Legos every time, but you put all the original ones back together and keep shaking and pouring and repeating. eventually you can end up with a bunch of Legos stuck together in a complex way, but it takes so long that spontaneous generation of macroscopic organisms is pretty much impossible while abiogenesis of very simple microbes is possible, because the chances of you shaking that box the first time and having a couple stick together is by far more likely than having something complex right off the bat. the continued shaking and pouring cycle is an allegory to the development of more complex cells which would eventually become the first life on earth.

The point I was making is that your same statements apply to the concept of macroscopic forms of life. For all we *actually* know, the universe is infinite and *eternal*. It's had *plenty* of time to form organized structures in spacetime, just as microscopic life forms have had plenty of time to form organized structures on this planet. Eventually the *evolutionary* process kicks in, and the pattern formations are no longer "random" at all.

 

[Michael]

Again with the inadequacies of your... lab. It is too small.

Too small for what? Birkeland currents show up in the lab. Plasma redshift shows up in the lab. Doppler shift also shows up in the lab. There's nothing inadequate about my lab in terms of demonstrating cause/effect relationships *empirically*. What's your problem?

Can you name anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination?

Sure. Pick up any book at the book store related to someone's "experiences" with God. They're all "testifying" for you. In terms of demonstrating that God exists outside of their imagination, you're the pot calling the kettle black. Were it not for your *imagination*, there would be no empirical connection between inflation and anything *physical* in the universe. Inflation doesn't have any effect on a single atom in a lab. Ditto for dark energy and exotic forms of matter. "Space expansion" never had any tangible effect on any photon on any wavelength in a lab.

Talk about *wild imagination*. You have no right to criticize anyone. At least since humans report an *effect on* humans today on Earth, we have something to *look at* in the lab. You can't even name a single source of your mythical magical "dark energy", let alone dream up any "experiment" that might show cause/effect connections in the brain, as Penrose has already done with his mathematical model of "soul".

 

[PsychoSarah]

The point I was making is that your same statements apply to the concept of macroscopic forms of life. For all we *actually* know, the universe is infinite and *eternal*. It's had *plenty* of time to form organized structures in spacetime, just as microscopic life forms have had plenty of time to form organized structures on this planet. Eventually the *evolutionary* process kicks in, and the pattern formations are no longer "random" at all.

My model doesn't work for macroscopic organisms coming from nonliving material, because it could potentially take hundreds off millions of years for just simple life to form. And spontaneous generation has been disproven.