Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[SkyWriting]

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 dis-proven.

There is no such thing as simple life. The idea is a sham.

 

[[serious]]

There is no such thing as simple life. The idea is a sham.

Ok, let's call it self replicating proto-life then. Since self replication is pretty much all that's needed to get the ball rolling evolutionarily, we don't need to get all the way to complex life, rather, just a simple self replicator.

 

[RealityCheck]

There is no such thing as simple life. The idea is a sham.

Then there's no complex life either. Simple and complex are terms that only have meaning in comparison to each other. You can't call any form of life "complex" because you have no "simple" life to compare it to. Complex? Complex compared to what?

 

[Davian]

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*.

Whoa, Kemosabe. Who is this "we" for whom you claim to speak? If you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?

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.

How can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?

 

[Michael]

Whoa, Kemosabe. Who is this "we" for whom you claim to speak? If you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?

Yes, actually if I'm going to limit myself to *empirical physics*, I most certainly do. Only in faster than C expansion creation mythologies, complete with supernatural constructs galore, can *you* begin to assign any sort of "age" to our universe.

How can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?

Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created or destroyed, I have the laws of physics which insist that *energy* has existed eternally in some form or another.

 

[Michael]

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.

Why would it even matter if it took a few billion years for it to first form? Even by mainstream standards, the universe is much older than that.

 

[Davian]

Too small for what?

Laboratory demonstration of modern cosmology concepts. You need a bigger lab. Yours is inadequate. No need to be embarrassed.

Sure. Pick up any book at the book store related to someone's "experiences" with God. They're all "testifying" for you.

People testify that they have seen bigfoot, or that they have been abducted by alien spacecraft. Same book store, BTW.

In terms of demonstrating that God exists outside of their imagination, you're saying they cannot. Got it. So why do you keep bringing it up?

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.

Who is arguing that humans do not have an effect on other humans?

 

[Michael]

Laboratory demonstration of modern cosmology concepts. You need a bigger lab. Yours is inadequate. No need to be embarrassed.

I don't need a bigger lab to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. I will eventually have to "scale" any theory to size of course.

People testify that they have seen bigfoot, or that they have been abducted by alien spacecraft. Same book store, BTW.

Ya, and they probably have books on Lambda-big-dark-foot too, same bookstore too by the way.

The shear percentages however tell a different story. Bigfoot experiences aren't exactly "typical".

In terms of demonstrating that God exists outside of their imagination, you're saying they cannot. Got it. So why do you keep bringing it up?

That's not what I said. How do you know Guth didn't make up inflation in his head?

Who is arguing that humans do not have an effect on other humans?

Er, you missed my point. Penrose came up with "tests" of his predictions that could be looked at here on Earth in the lab. Unlike your string of spectacular lab failures with exotic matter, Penrose actually managed to support his theory based on "predicted" structure arrangements in the brain.

Compare and contrast that with Guth's imaginary inflation friend that has no tangible effect on anything we can look at in the lab, and has no effect on a single photon in any wavelength in a lab.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why would it even matter if it took a few billion years for it to first form? Even by mainstream standards, the universe is much older than that.

Because we are looking at earth, which is 4.5 billion years old. Unless you want to go with life on earth originated somewhere else, like an asteroid or something, that is how much time at the most we have to work with, probably less.

 

[Michael]

Because we are looking at earth, which is 4.5 billion years old. Unless you want to go with life on earth originated somewhere else, like an asteroid or something, that is how much time at the most we have to work with, probably less.

Apparently we're still talking past each other, but it's too late for me to go back and try to figure out where it began. I'll try again in the morning after I get some sleep.

 

[poolerboy0077]

The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory

Uh, no it isn't. You're confusing evolution for abiogenesis.

It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.

How presumptuous.

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.

The point of the experiment isn't that it is random but rather that it can be demonstrated that life can come from non-life. Once we understand at least one way in which this can occur, we can then ask if there were ever conditions on Earth similar to those in the specific combination used in the experiment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.
When are you going to wake up to the Spiritual Realm?

The second it can independently be verified to exist.

Like other Naturalists you act like its not there.

Because it can't be shown to be there.

You ignore it.

Yep. Just like I ignore the undetectable pink dragons in my garage.

However, its activity is higher life in our midst.

No. You're confusing this spiritual realm with the realm those pink dragons exist on.

You are ignoring what They are up to!

Yes. Because I don't know. I can't find out what the undetectable pink dragons are up to because I can't study that which doesn't seem to exist.

Does deception and wise in your own eyes ring any bells of what is happening around you every moment?

I don't understand this question.

 

[ChetSinger]

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.

No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.

So guess what: God did it, just as he has said. And is that so hard to accept?

 

[mzungu]

No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.

So guess what: God did it, just as he has said. And is that so hard to accept?

What you fail to understand is that it matters not where life began so long as it did. It can be on Earth and a multiple of other planets throughout the universe. After all the universe is made up of the same elements.

As for God did it; the onus is on you to prove that a God exists and that he created life. A bronze age book is not evidence. Unless you can come up with something tangible then suffice it to say science has the last word.

 

[ChetSinger]

What you fail to understand is that it matters not where life began so long as it did. It can be on Earth and a multiple of other planets throughout the universe. After all the universe is made up of the same elements.

Hmmm, why do you think that Dr. Koonin's calculations, or mine, are limited to the earth? While I can't speak for him, the ones I've seen and experimented with take into account the mass of the universe. They still don't work, thus the impetus to consider multiple universes.

As for God did it; the onus is on you to prove that a God exists and that he created life. A bronze age book is not evidence. Unless you can come up with something tangible then suffice it to say science has the last word.

I don't feel compelled to convince you, so I feel no onus.

 

[Davian]

Yes, actually if I'm going to limit myself to *empirical physics*, I most certainly do.

I asked, if you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?

Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created or destroyed, I have the laws of physics which insist that *energy* has existed eternally in some form or another.

I asked, how can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?

 

[Michael]

I asked, if you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so yes, I still have need of the concept of eternity, and I have no tangible evidence that there was a time when this universe did not exist. In fact, even astronomy had 'need of' an infinite/eternal universe until they decided that redshift was related to magic.

I asked, how can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?

I have no scientific evidence it's *not* eternal either. Even *if* photon redshift were strictly related to expansion, a "contraction" between matter/antimatter doesn't necessarily take us to a "point". Alfven's bang theory was cyclical, and in no way involved stuffing all the energy of the universe into something smaller than a proton.

 

[Davian]

I don't need a bigger lab to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. I will eventually have to "scale" any theory to size of course.

How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?

Ya, and they probably have books on Lambda-big-dark-foot too, same bookstore too by the way.

Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.

The shear percentages however tell a different story. Bigfoot experiences aren't exactly "typical".

Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?

That's not what I said.

You have been asked to provide the name of 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. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.

Er, you missed my point.

No, I suspect you just mistyped the sentence, and put 'humans' where you meant you write 'a god'. I just responded as it was written (imagine that!)

 

[Loudmouth]

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"?



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.

For Pete's sake, please stay away from your obsessions for at least one thread. Is that possible for you?

 

[Michael]

How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?

I supposed it depends on the size of the model, and the size of the plasma chamber.

Is there any particular reason that you're intentionally ignoring the clear difference between 'scaling problems' and demonstrating actual cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation?

Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.

String theory is in the same section however.

Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?

Er, exactly which fallacies are you hiding behind as it relates to the impotence of CDM in the lab, appeals to authority, popularity or both? It certainly isn't based on empirical lab tested physics.

You have been asked to provide the name of 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. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.

Penrose actually has more physical lab evidence of ORCH-OR than you have for your whole gang of impotent on Earth invisible sky buddies.