• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So purely a difference of scale? Is there any Actual barrier that makes advanced math less reliable than, say, high school algebra?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,991
1,736
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,223.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟31,038.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Yes.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can evolution account for this system of systems?


Science(Fiction) writers have the easiest job in the world.
It's called armchair quarterbacking. They just compile any
facts they choose to support, then write up a fictional story
around the facts and claim it's non-fiction. Then, when new
facts come to light, they shrug and say "Oh yes, we learn new
things all the time. Then the wad up the old paper and write a
new one about the latest idea that popped into their heads.

Like any good science fiction, it has some basis in fact,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,991
1,736
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,223.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

This is not evidence. This states only some hypothesis of the reasons why the evolution of sexual reproduction would occur. It doesn't begin to explain how this could happen. How complex systems can evolve bit by bit and gradually. All they are saying is it must have evolved because its needed for evolution in the first place. But they are assuming a lot here and there is no testable evidence.

The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction.
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

.

So true and applicable.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
As one ID pointed out a tornado putting a house together wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics since the tornado would still draw it's energy from the sun. But we know a tornado doesn't put a house together even though it draws it's energy from the sun because of the law of probability. The heart of the laws of thermodynamics is about probability. If it's wasn't for earth protection ( plasma and magnetic shield) the sun would easily destroy physical life on this planet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
That is not the point I am making. Even the simple system that a jelly fish has needs all its components in place and working to function properly.

As sponges show, this isn't true either. They are multicellular organisms that function just fine without a neural net.

You keep claiming that such and such is required, and yet I can find species without them. You are just flat wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
As one ID pointed out a tornado putting a house together wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics since the tornado would still draw it's energy from the sun.

If you think biological reproduction is anything like a tornado putting a house together, then you need to retake 3rd grade biology.

The heart of the laws of thermodynamics is about probability. If it's wasn't for earth protection ( plasma and magnetic shield) the sun would easily destroy physical life on this planet.

It's like you put extra effort into not understanding thermodynamics.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,465
4,001
47
✟1,120,029.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens

Good thing that Earth and Sol aren't the only planet and star in the Universe then.

If you play the lottery 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the odds of winning improve.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Good thing that Earth and Sol aren't the only planet and star in the Universe then.

If you play the lottery 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the odds of winning improve.
Lotteries are designed to have winners. Are you suggest the universe is designed to have winners also?
If you think biological reproduction is anything like a tornado putting a house together, then you need to retake 3rd grade biology.
Of course I don't think that. Self-replicating cell is a lot more complex than any man-made house or machine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,991
1,736
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,223.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As sponges show, this isn't true either. They are multicellular organisms that function just fine without a neural net.

You keep claiming that such and such is required, and yet I can find species without them. You are just flat wrong.

So doesn't the sponge have complex systems within systems that need to have many parts present together at once to work. Like the flagellum within the collar cells.

Sponges are covered with tiny pores on the outside called ostia (2). Ostia lead to an internal system of canals which leads to one or more larger holes called oscula, which are the openings to the out side. Ostia are surrounded by donut shaped cells called porocytes. The chambers within the canals are lined up with cells called choanocytes, or collar cells. The collar cells consist a sticky funnel shaped collar and a hair-like whip called a flagellum. The collar cells beat their flagella back and forth to force the water through the sponge. The water brings in nutrients and oxygen and takes out the carbon dioxide.

So not only is there a complex system for the sponge to process its nutrients there are complex systems within that system that hep it all work together. Something that is hard to believe all formed bit by bit and fell into place by a random and chance process that needs to have meaningful and useful bits and pieces that will be kept even if they are only a small piece of something bigger. Even the flagellum itself is complex and has many working parts with seals and valves and motors that need to be all there working together.
Life of a Sponge
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Looking at this exchange from the outside, it looks like parts are getting stripped off your proposal for irreducibly complex systems a you just keep sliding one step back and claiming that new example is irreducibly complex.
There is the modern eye, which was stripped back to a light sensitive patch on a nerve. Jelly fish cut out the nerve, sponges cut out organ systems more generally, slime molds bridge single and multicellular life, even their level of cooperation can be stripped back to bio films, that flagellum you mentioned is a variation of a type III transport system.

In general, you seem to be sliding from an argument of specific systems being irreducibly complex to a more general statement of "things need all the parts that they need to live" which, well true I suppose, is unhelpful to your point. Irreducible complexity is not grounded in the idea that somethings are needed for a specific creature to live, but in the idea that those things can't have developed via small gradual changes. If we've tracked parts that can be stripped out from a modern eye all the way back to a flagellum, your argument is already sunk.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,991
1,736
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,223.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

I believe that evolution plays a part in life but i dont believe that all higher levels of organisms come from a simpler form beforehand. I havnt seen any evidence for this in what I have read. I show examples of a simpler eye and then assume that eyes evolved from that is a big jump. It sounds good as an explanation but I honestly dont think they have explained every stage and development for things like hearts and sexual reproduction happening as well. The flagellum which has the mechanical workings of about 20 odd parts of gears and shafts seems to need many parts to work. It has the appearance of design but supposedly just happened to randomly fall together. If a machinist had come across this earlier we would have invented machinery much earlier.

The debate was going further back because the further you go back the more these parts had to come from nothing or something that wasn't there before. Just like the Cambrian explosion where we have a bunch of complex designs popping up from no where. I dont know all the workings of the body but to me the first liver or kidney, heart, blood vessels, brains and their connections and the many organs that make the body run are not just one dimensional things. They are part of a system that works all together. Like the male and female sexual organs and reproduction systems that need each other and are useless without each other.

Afterall the penis has to go somewhere other wise its just a flap of skin protruding out of the body. How many times did they get it wrong before it was all a perfect fit and worked good with all its other components in place to produce life. There are many aspects to it that need to be right other wise there is no sperm or it dies or it doesn't make it or it doesn't developed. What did they do making a baby taken 20 or 30 and we will eventually get it all working. In the mean time we have some male creature walking around with this flap of skin hanging off him wondering what the hell is going on and trying to find some use for it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,362
14,061
✟257,467.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Lotteries are designed to have winners. Are you suggest the universe is designed to have winners also?
Of course I don't think that. Self-replicating cell is a lot more complex than any man-made house or machine.
What the "tornado in junkyard" analogy fails to take into account is the selective and iterative aspect of evolution. Yes, we can all agree that no tornado blowing through a junkyard will build a 747. But evolutionary theory doesn't suggest it would. A more apt analogy would be a million tornados blowing through a junk yard, and preserving the most 747 like arrangement of junk every time, and adding to it with every tornado. Assuming that 747 body plan best meets the evolutionary pressures of the junkyard, you'd have a 747 in no time.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,991
1,736
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,223.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

So where does God come in. If thats the case with evolution and the big bang started the universe then Gods part was what. In the beginning God created some chemicals and a few particles and he seen that it was good and he rested saying, gee that was hard work. You may as well not even bother with God.
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Congratulations, you've figured out the problem of using the "god of the gaps" argument.
 
Upvote 0