Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

stevevw · May 1, 2014

Thats what I dont get. People can acknowledge that life and the universe is way more complex that a man made piece of machinery or building. They both have that similar element of design with what seems like calculations, measurements, alignments, precise fitting and synchronicity. It looks like design and acts like design even more than something that is designed. But its not, it all happened by this random and undirected process that just happens to coincidentally look like it was designed.

stevevw · May 1, 2014

Chany said:
Congratulations, you've figured out the problem of using the "god of the gaps" argument.

No I'm talking to the Christians/Catholics who believe in God. I am asking them where does their God come into the equation if evolution is the process that made man and started life. Was it with the chemicals or a single cell life as abiogenesis is to hard to explain. Is it in the particles of the big bang or big expansion. Did God have a LHC machine to start it off. I have asked this before but never get an answer. Its like hedging your bets and I cant work out where God fits into the picture.

[serious] · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
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 idea behind irreducible complexity is that there is no stepwise way of assembling it that would produce function before it is complete. The modern eye has function at every step until you work back to the simplest eye.

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.

That's not how it works. If the eye can function without a lens, than the lens can develop after the rest is there. That's one LESS thing that has to develop at the same time. Pieces can be stripped away like that all the way back to a simple photosensitive patch. only one part had to evolve at a time.

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.

Ah, so sexual reproduction is needed for a penis to have use. Fine. Now, can you have sexual reproduction without a penis? Yup! Lots of animals do it that way. Frogs, for example.

RealityCheck · May 1, 2014

Smidlee said:
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.

Yes, mostly correct, although tornadoes aren't directly sun-powered. Little more complex than that... The point being.... ?

RealityCheck · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
No I'm talking to the Christians/Catholics who believe in God. I am asking them where does their God come into the equation if evolution is the process that made man and started life. Was it with the chemicals or a single cell life as abiogenesis is to hard to explain. Is it in the particles of the big bang or big expansion. Did God have a LHC machine to start it off. I have asked this before but never get an answer. Its like hedging your bets and I cant work out where God fits into the picture.

This part in bold seems to be the core of all your posts - science is just so hard to explain, it's easier to insert God and be done with it.

RealityCheck · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
Thats what I dont get. People can acknowledge that life and the universe is way more complex that a man made piece of machinery or building. They both have that similar element of design with what seems like calculations, measurements, alignments, precise fitting and synchronicity. It looks like design and acts like design even more than something that is designed. But its not, it all happened by this random and undirected process that just happens to coincidentally look like it was designed.

Undirected, yes. Random, no.

Steve, are the physical forces of the universe random?

Do chemical interactions occur randomly and without predictable results?

Does gravity randomly repel or attract? Does the gravitational force randomly depend on mass or mass squared or mass cubed? Does it sometimes depend on the mass of both objects or just one object?

Does the moon switch directions in its orbit unpredictably? Does earth?

Does your stomach sometime produce acid and sometimes produce alkaline goo? Do you randomly digest something on one occasion but not another?

Does water randomly turn into ice? Or steam?

When you open your refrigerator, are the contents the same as they were five minutes ago or have you suddenly acquired a bunch of new food randomly?

RealityCheck · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
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.

You apparently don't realize that the penis is the male version of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

You also apparently don't realize (according to the italicized part) that evolution and life simply don't work that way.

Go read Ken Miller's dissection of how irreducible complexity really isn't irreducible at all.

Paulos23 · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
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.

We keep looking and we keep not finding anywhere God had a hand in it. Even when someone claims that about something that is unknown or not well understood is due to God, a more natural explination arrises and the God explination is thrown out. In fact the only place I would say there is a posibility of any divine intervention (mostly due to the fact we can't find out) is at the start of the universe, and that is only one of many posibilities for what started the universe.

God may be changing things in ways we don't notice, but if he is why is he hiding? Why not do big showy stuff so we don't have to keep looking?

Smidlee · May 1, 2014

stevevw said:
Thats what I dont get. People can acknowledge that life and the universe is way more complex that a man made piece of machinery or building. They both have that similar element of design with what seems like calculations, measurements, alignments, precise fitting and synchronicity. It looks like design and acts like design even more than something that is designed. But its not, it all happened by this random and undirected process that just happens to coincidentally look like it was designed.

Exactly. Evolutionist believe cars, planes, computers are intelligent designed but their brain isn't. If the brain isn't intelligent designed than why assume anything man-made is intelligent designed. This is the God factor that's build into man that sees himself outside of nature.

stevevw · May 2, 2014

Smidlee said:
Exactly. Evolutionist believe cars, planes, computers are intelligent designed but their brain isn't. If the brain isn't intelligent designed than why assume anything man-made is intelligent designed. This is the God factor that's build into man that sees himself outside of nature.

The complex jigsaw puzzel that darwins evolution paints can build a more amazing piece of machinery than any ever built that can take man to the moon or make the most powerful computer. All the greatest minds and technology is working on trying to figure out how life came about and they still scratch their heads. Yet they say its got nothing to do with intelligence but a random undirected thing. The machinery in biology can teach us some lesson about how to build things. If it looks like its made from an intelligent source then maybe it is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are its a duck.

Shemjaza · May 3, 2014

Smidlee said:
Lotteries are designed to have winners. Are you suggest the universe is designed to have winners also?

It's an analogy about probability, nothing more.

I'm willing to accept that life developing is unlikely, given what seem to be pretty specific requirements, but the number of stars in the universe will certainly affect how likely an event is.

Unless you have some reason we should assume that natural abiogenesis is impossible?

Smidlee · May 3, 2014

Shemjaza said:
It's an analogy about probability, nothing more.

I'm willing to accept that life developing is unlikely, given what seem to be pretty specific requirements, but the number of stars in the universe will certainly affect how likely an event is.

Unless you have some reason we should assume that natural abiogenesis is impossible?

Lotteries appear as if they are random but that's an illusion. Lotteries are design in such a way to have right amount of winners to bring in the most profit.
I have very good reason to doubt abiogenesis. It called the law of biogenesis.

Shemjaza · May 3, 2014

Smidlee said:
Lotteries appear as if they are random but that's an illusion. Lotteries are design in such a way to have right amount of winners to bring in the most profit.

The overall lottery sure with all its divisions and such may have design... but as I was talking about just the probability of "winning", as in getting the exact correct number. But as I said, it was as an analogy for probability, because you were talking about how likely idea the planet and star were.

Smidlee said:
I have very good reason to doubt abiogenesis. It called the law of biogenesis.

That's ridiculous.

Those archaic experiments served to demonstrate that fully formed complex creatures don't appear out of dead matter. (Salamanders from burning logs and maggots out of spoiled meat.)

They did nothing to show that simple organic chemicals can develop into amino acids and then into primitive replicating chemicals.

Using the biogenesis experiments to disprove modern chemical abiogenesis hypothesis is identical to using the example of being unable to fly with two flappy wings on your arms to disprove heavier then air flight.

createdtoworship · May 3, 2014

RealityCheck said:
Yes, mostly correct, although tornadoes aren't directly sun-powered. Little more complex than that... The point being.... ?

May I insert a comment here?

I think you know the point. And your comment is a red herring to the focus of the conversation (trying to steer away from the inherent design factors of the universe).

the universe itself has much design inherent:

pros and cons of this view found below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

also more importantly much peer review has been written in the last 5 years about human design, stellar design, and avian design:

Michael Denton peer review 2/25/13 in bio complexity
Denton
Denton

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute (2009)
The coherence of an engineered world

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views

A.C. McIntosh peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute [Vol.4, No.2 (2009) 154-169]
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

McIntosh has published other pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific literature, evolutionnews.org has reviewed here: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

(it may be awhile for me to reply as I am doing studies for my work)

thank you for your patience

Smidlee · May 3, 2014

Shemjaza said:
That's ridiculous.

Those archaic experiments served to demonstrate that fully formed complex creatures don't appear out of dead matter. (Salamanders from burning logs and maggots out of spoiled meat.)

They did nothing to show that simple organic chemicals can develop into amino acids and then into primitive replicating chemicals.

Using the biogenesis experiments to disprove modern chemical abiogenesis hypothesis is identical to using the example of being unable to fly with two flappy wings on your arms to disprove heavier then air flight.

I believe you have it backward.
Abiogenesis is like flappy your arms together thinking you can fly like a jet. Biogenesis has been proven ( like flying birds) while abiogenesis requires the supernatural (Superman flying). It's because we know what it requires to get an airplane off the ground we know flappy your arms are useless. The same with biogenesis, we know what is requires to have a truly self-replicating living cell that makes abiogenesis impossible. Abiogenesis is science fiction just like Superman.

createdtoworship · May 3, 2014

jhwatts said:
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.

I believe all primordial soup theory is based on the miller urey experiment which I believe created some primitive amino acids. However there are many sources as to the fact that this experiment is overrated and by and large "old news"

here are some of the more obvious problems with the primordial soup theory and the miller urey experiment:

law of mass action:in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides. not the other way around. So this law of mass action proves evolution cannot happen on a chemical level as evolutionary laws of abiogenesis and laws of primordial soup theories suggest.
water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. Thats not the interesting part. lets start with endothermic reactions, do you know what they are?They are reactions that bond elements. Like when you drop a red die inwater, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it bonds to it. nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do bond well with the toxic elements produced in the miller urey experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the nucleotides will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic reaction which does not come cheaply, as it requires much needed energy (that would not be there in a primitive soup).
not to mention the fact that proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids. Miller Urey produced 50/50. So no proteins evolved in miller urey.
nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides. Miller urey produced none, but if possible it would have produced 50/50. So another limitation of primitive soup theory.
ammonia and methane: in 70's scientist realized: but ammonia would
only last a few thousand years due to ultra violet radiation. And Methane would produce 10 meters of oil due to ultra violet radiation. so no methane, and no ammonia after a few thousand years. so there would be no necessary chemicals in early biospheres to evolve any life out of primitive soup without the chemicals necessary to reproduce miller urey. Other than this: miller urey no studies have been shown to produce abiogenesis or chemical evolution

evolution fails

I hope this answers your posts.

Sorry if I don't reply soon as I am busy with work right now. Thanks for this thread btw.

Shemjaza · May 3, 2014

Smidlee said:
I believe you have it backward.
Abiogenesis is like flappy your arms together thinking you can fly like a jet. Biogenesis has been proven ( like flying birds) while abiogenesis requires the supernatural (Superman flying). It's because we know what it requires to get an airplane off the ground we know flappy your arms are useless. The same with biogenesis, we know what is requires to have a truly self-replicating living cell that makes abiogenesis impossible. Abiogenesis is science fiction just like Superman.

You can believe all you like, but can you demonstrate it?

My point about flappy arms wasn't me trying to be insulting. I was trying to make a point about how inappropriate the biogenesis experiments were for disproving abiogenesis.

Amino acids do form out of simpler chemicals.
Amino acids are reasonably common in the universe.
Complex chemical structures do form in nature.
==>
The abiogenesis hypothesis is that replicators can form... could be wrong, but "Fire doesn't spawn amphibians" does nothing to demonstrate it either way.

Do you have any actual evidence? And I don't mean that a modern single celled organism with billions of adaptations can't form out of nothing. I mean base chemistry giving rise to replicators.

Shemjaza · May 3, 2014

gradyll said:
I believe all primordial soup theory is based on the miller urey experiment which I believe created some primitive amino acids. However there are many sources as to the fact that this experiment is overrated and by and large "old news"

here are some of the more obvious problems with the primordial soup theory and the miller urey experiment:

law of mass action:in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides. not the other way around. So this law of mass action proves evolution cannot happen on a chemical level as evolutionary laws of abiogenesis and laws of primordial soup theories suggest.

water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. Thats not the interesting part. lets start with endothermic reactions, do you know what they are?They are reactions that bond elements. Like when you drop a red die inwater, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it bonds to it. nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do bond well with the toxic elements produced in the miller urey experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the nucleotides will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic reaction which does not come cheaply, as it requires much needed energy (that would not be there in a primitive soup).

not to mention the fact that proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids. Miller Urey produced 50/50. So no proteins evolved in miller urey.

nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides. Miller urey produced none, but if possible it would have produced 50/50. So another limitation of primitive soup theory.

ammonia and methane: in 70's scientist realized: but ammonia would
only last a few thousand years due to ultra violet radiation. And Methane would produce 10 meters of oil due to ultra violet radiation. so no methane, and no ammonia after a few thousand years. so there would be no necessary chemicals in early biospheres to evolve any life out of primitive soup without the chemicals necessary to reproduce miller urey. Other than this: miller urey no studies have been shown to produce abiogenesis or chemical evolution

evolution fails

I hope this answers your posts.

Sorry if I don't reply soon as I am busy with work right now. Thanks for this thread btw.

Every liquid in our body (in and outside cells) is full of water molecules... I'm no biochemist, but I'm dubious that water is too corrosive for organic chemistry. Got a reference?

I agree that energy is required for life... if only there were sources... oh wait, weather, tides, sunlight, volcanoes... nope nothing.

createdtoworship · May 3, 2014

Shemjaza said:
Every liquid in our body (in and outside cells) is full of water molecules...

yes but this does not mean they evolved from non living material (chemical evolution)....as miller urey/primitive soup theorists suggest.

I'm no biochemist, but I'm dubious that water is too corrosive for organic chemistry. Got a reference?

I gave you two references, "law of mass action", and "endothermic reactions"

I agree that energy is required for life... if only there were sources... oh wait, weather, tides, sunlight, volcanoes... nope nothing.

well yeah, we could guess that lightening struck and with a whole lot of luck some amino acids formed. But water because it is a solvent, will break down even those elements, not build them into proteins. Secondly, even with energy you can't produce 100% left handed amino acids which proteins and basics of DNA and life all require (DNA require right handed nucleotides-rather). But lets get back to the energy required for endorthermic reactions. Lightening? Volcanoes? Really? I have given you two scientific citations, do you have any peer reviews that suggest what this energy is? I presume you are simply guessing. In which case chemical evolution/abiogenesis shall not be in the least bit considered a scientific theory, as it lacks observation and testing.

thank you for the comment.

Smidlee · May 3, 2014

Shemjaza said:
You can believe all you like, but can you demonstrate it?

Demonstate what exactly? That's according to our knowledge it's impossible to beam people up on the Enterprise and warp to the next galaxy? You want to prove this fairy tale Frankencell never existed?

My point about flappy arms wasn't me trying to be insulting. I was trying to make a point about how inappropriate the biogenesis experiments were for disproving abiogenesis.

I believe your example prove exactly the oppisite that we can use our knowledge of biogenesis (jets) to disprove abiogenesis (Superman).

Amino acids do form out of simpler chemicals.
Amino acids are reasonably common in the universe.
Complex chemical structures do form in nature.
==>
The abiogenesis hypothesis is that replicators can form... could be wrong, but "Fire doesn't spawn amphibians" does nothing to demonstrate it either way.

Do you have any actual evidence? And I don't mean that a modern single celled organism with billions of adaptations can't form out of nothing. I mean base chemistry giving rise to replicators.

The fact that no one has come close of engineering a true self-replicating machine is good evidence. As well as the many paradoxes that abiogenesis has to overcome, the only reason to believe in it is for religious reasons. (The belief the mindless universe created life)

Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

inquisitive

inquisitive

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Never tell me the odds!

Veteran

inquisitive

Regular Member

Veteran

Regular Member

In the grip of grace

Veteran

In the grip of grace

Regular Member

Regular Member

In the grip of grace

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency