Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

Loudmouth said:

Using the creationist version of the law of thermodynamics, we shouldn't even have a temperature difference between Hawaii and the South Pole.

Click to expand...

Also refrigerators work by miracles.

Shemjaza said:

No, you referred to two scientific principles, you didn't give me a reference for how they make the formation of RNA and DNA impossible.

Click to expand...

thanks for the reply. And yes you asked for references and I gave them. Now you are asking a different question and we can move on. ARe you now asking for evidence for RNA and DNA formation via evolution? I am unsure of your motive here as I don't believe RNA and DNA formed by evolution (chemical evolution that is, which has many theories and hypothesis of abiogenesis behind it).

gradyll said:

thanks for the reply. And yes you asked for references and I gave them. Now you are asking a different question and we can move on. ARe you now asking for evidence for RNA and DNA formation via evolution? I am unsure of your motive here as I don't believe RNA and DNA formed by evolution (chemical evolution that is, which has many theories and hypothesis of abiogenesis behind it).

Click to expand...

Ah, but what is your reason for not believing RNA and DNA formed naturally from simpler precursor molecules?

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Ah, but what is your reason for not believing RNA and DNA formed naturally from simpler precursor molecules?

Click to expand...

why don't you believe elephants can fly? I presume it's because of lack of evidence. The same for not believing RNA, DNA can evolve by natural means.

I feel inclined at this point to quote ravi zacharius in His book: Jesus among other Gods. (referring to a cell's evolution not just RNA or DNA).

"The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell. . . . If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another, around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.5

Writing about this same human cell, Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Cardiff, Wales, reminded his readers that the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 1040,000. The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe. Though a Buddhist, Dr. Wickramasinghe concedes this supernatural notion.6

So “impossible” is this event that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize–winning scientist who helped crack the code of human DNA, said it is “almost a miracle.”7


sources quoted
5. Lewis Thomas, quoted by Henry Brand and Philip Yancey, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 25.
6. Chandra Wickramasinghe, quoted by Norman Geisler, A. F. Brooke, and Mark J. Keosh, The Creator in the Courtroom (Milford, Mich.: Mott Media, 1982), 149.
7. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 88."

again in another quote from Norman Geislers book "I don't have faith enough to be an athiest" he reiterates the chances of a protein evolving:

"Atheists and theists alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from nonliving chemicals. The figures they calculate are astronomically small—virtually zero. For example, Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life, you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together!16"

"That probability is virtually zero."

sources quoted:
16. See Strobel,Case for Faith, 99-101.

gradyll said:

why don't you believe elephants can fly? I presume it's because of lack of evidence. The same for not believing RNA, DNA can evolve by natural means.

Click to expand...

If life did form through natural mechanisms, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?

I don't know about you, but I would expect to see very simple creatures appearing first, and then somewhat more complex creatures after that. Wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what we see. For billions of years, there was only single celled life. We also have massive evidence that these single celled organisms produced an atmosphere of oxygen that made complex life possible. All of it is consistent with life starting from non-life.

I feel inclined at this point to quote ravi zacharius in His book: Jesus among other Gods. (referring to a cell's evolution not just RNA or DNA).

"The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell. . . . If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another, around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.5

Writing about this same human cell, Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Cardiff, Wales, reminded his readers that the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 1040,000. The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe. Though a Buddhist, Dr. Wickramasinghe concedes this supernatural notion.6

So “impossible” is this event that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize–winning scientist who helped crack the code of human DNA, said it is “almost a miracle.”7


sources quoted
5. Lewis Thomas, quoted by Henry Brand and Philip Yancey, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 25.
6. Chandra Wickramasinghe, quoted by Norman Geisler, A. F. Brooke, and Mark J. Keosh, The Creator in the Courtroom (Milford, Mich.: Mott Media, 1982), 149.
7. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 88."

again in another quote from Norman Geislers book "I don't have faith enough to be an athiest" he reiterates the chances of a protein evolving:

"Atheists and theists alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from nonliving chemicals. The figures they calculate are astronomically small—virtually zero. For example, Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life, you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together!16"

"That probability is virtually zero."

sources quoted:
16. See Strobel,Case for Faith, 99-101.

Click to expand...

And now we get the pseudo-science and quote mines. How predictable.

gradyll said:

why don't you believe elephants can fly? I presume it's because of lack of evidence. The same for not believing RNA, DNA can evolve by natural means.

I feel inclined at this point to quote ravi zacharius in His book: Jesus among other Gods. (referring to a cell's evolution not just RNA or DNA).

"The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell. . . . If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another, around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.5

Writing about this same human cell, Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Cardiff, Wales, reminded his readers that the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 1040,000. The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe. Though a Buddhist, Dr. Wickramasinghe concedes this supernatural notion.6

So “impossible” is this event that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize–winning scientist who helped crack the code of human DNA, said it is “almost a miracle.”7


sources quoted
5. Lewis Thomas, quoted by Henry Brand and Philip Yancey, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 25.
6. Chandra Wickramasinghe, quoted by Norman Geisler, A. F. Brooke, and Mark J. Keosh, The Creator in the Courtroom (Milford, Mich.: Mott Media, 1982), 149.
7. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 88."

again in another quote from Norman Geislers book "I don't have faith enough to be an athiest" he reiterates the chances of a protein evolving:

"Atheists and theists alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from nonliving chemicals. The figures they calculate are astronomically small—virtually zero. For example, Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life, you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together!16"

"That probability is virtually zero."

sources quoted:
16. See Strobel,Case for Faith, 99-101.

Click to expand...

Arguments against origin of life from natural due to improbabilities all suffer from the same problem . . . the sheer size of the universe. It may very well be infinite, in which case all possible things, no matter how improbable, will certainly occur. We don't know of life in any other place in the universe. This is completely consistent with a natural origin of life that was extremely improbable. So your objection is moot.

That said, I believe God is a God of love, and He has arranged a universe in which life is fairly common. So it would be my faith prediction that we will be able to detect life elsewhere some day.

I may not live to see the day.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Arguments against origin of life from natural due to improbabilities all suffer from the same problem . . . the sheer size of the universe. It may very well be infinite, in which case all possible things, no matter how improbable, will certainly occur. We don't know of life in any other place in the universe. This is completely consistent with a natural origin of life that was extremely improbable. So your objection is moot.

That said, I believe God is a God of love, and He has arranged a universe in which life is fairly common. So it would be my faith prediction that we will be able to detect life elsewhere some day.

I may not live to see the day.

Click to expand...

I highlighted a very important observation in your reply. And this is the term "may" as you seem to be unsure of your theories. Do you happen to have any references?

Loudmouth said:

If life did form through natural mechanisms, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?

I don't know about you, but I would expect to see very simple creatures appearing first, and then somewhat more complex creatures after that. Wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what we see. For billions of years, there was only single celled life. We also have massive evidence that these single celled organisms produced an atmosphere of oxygen that made complex life possible. All of it is consistent with life starting from non-life.



And now we get the pseudo-science and quote mines. How predictable.

Click to expand...

the fossil record is evolutionists worst nightmare. In it contains no transitions whatsoever. Whether it be from whales to dog like creatures, or from monkeys to man, or from dinasaurs to birds. None exist. In so many hundreds of years of archaeology you would expect to see one or two. If not multiple millions of intermediaries attempting to evolve. So yes the fossil record is exactly how I expect. If you wish you may show any fossil that proves as an intermediary between two separate genus level taxonomy. Examples are listed above in my reply. This is macro evolution. And no one in five years has shown one on these threads. Note: must be either offspring of parents of two separate genus, or shown to have evolved through billions of years between two separate genus of taxa. Again no transition has been found. No monkey man, bird dino, or whale dogs. OR any such macro evolution across the scale. This is a missing link for sure. But there is not just one link missing we have thousands of missing links.

Thanks for the comment.

Humans and our actions are natural too. We don't exist apart from nature as outside entities who can interfere with it. We are intelligent though so maybe we couldn't prevent it from being an intelligent design of sort.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Arguments against origin of life from natural due to improbabilities all suffer from the same problem . . . the sheer size of the universe. It may very well be infinite, in which case all possible things, no matter how improbable, will certainly occur. We don't know of life in any other place in the universe. This is completely consistent with a natural origin of life that was extremely improbable. So your objection is moot.

That said, I believe God is a God of love, and He has arranged a universe in which life is fairly common. So it would be my faith prediction that we will be able to detect life elsewhere some day.

I may not live to see the day.

Click to expand...

And did this life elsewhere evolve into human like creatures. If they didnt then Gods love means nothing to an alien bacteria.

gradyll said:

the fossil record is evolutionists worst nightmare. In it contains no transitions whatsoever. Whether it be from whales to dog like creatures, or from monkeys to man, or from dinasaurs to birds. None exist. In so many hundreds of years of archaeology you would expect to see one or two. If not multiple millions of intermediaries attempting to evolve. So yes the fossil record is exactly how I expect. If you wish you may show any fossil that proves as an intermediary between two separate genus level taxonomy. Examples are listed above in my reply. This is macro evolution. And no one in five years has shown one on these threads. Note: must be either offspring of parents of two separate genus, or shown to have evolved through billions of years between two separate genus of taxa. Again no transition has been found. No monkey man, bird dino, or whale dogs. OR any such macro evolution across the scale. This is a missing link for sure. But there is not just one link missing we have thousands of missing links.

Click to expand...

What fossil record are you looking at?

Armoured said:

What fossil record are you looking at?

Click to expand...

The one at the creation museum.

again, if you have any transitions between genra, please show us. If not, discussion over. None can be found in the fossil record. : In conclusion. Next topic.

Armoured said:

What fossil record are you looking at?

Click to expand...

all of them.

any of them.

do you have a preference?

If yes, please provide some missing links.

As I suspect the fossil record is the evolutionists worst nightmare.

It shouldn't be about what fossil record but what tree of life is real if any.

"Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled web of life."
Evolutionary biologists: Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - San Diego Cultural Trends | Examiner.com

So maybe some of the links that evolutionists have made are wrong. The connections made by observational evidence may not be correctly linked to the right animals to make any transitional lines like the ones they have made. In some cases the links they have been made by observation have been completely wrong and the animal is now linked to a completely different one on another evolutionary line that has nothing to do with it. So genetics is actually painting the true picture of the tree of life and it may not suit the way that evolutionists have said how the fossil record is laid out. HGT can and has caused species to cross breed or get genes from other species horizontally through viruses as well. So it is not as straight forward as some are making out.

However, many patterns in these data cannot be represented accurately by a tree. The evolution of genes in viruses and prokaryotes, of genomes in all organisms, and the inevitable noise that creeps into phylogenetic estimations, will all create patterns far more complicated than those portrayed by a simple tree diagram. Genetic restructuring and non-vertical transmission are largely overlooked by a methodological preference for phylogenetic trees and a deep-rooted expectation of tree-like evolution.
Demolishing Darwin's Tree: Eric Bapteste and the Network of Life - Evolution News & Views

stevevw said:

It shouldn't be about what fossil record but what tree of life is real if any.

"Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled web of life."
Evolutionary biologists: Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - San Diego Cultural Trends | Examiner.com

So maybe some of the links that evolutionists have made are wrong. The connections made by observational evidence may not be correctly linked to the right animals to make any transitional lines like the ones they have made. In some cases the links they have been made by observation have been completely wrong and the animal is now linked to a completely different one on another evolutionary line that has nothing to do with it. So genetics is actually painting the true picture of the tree of life and it may not suit the way that evolutionists have said how the fossil record is laid out. HGT can and has caused species to cross breed or get genes from other species horizontally through viruses as well. So it is not as straight forward as some are making out.

However, many patterns in these data cannot be represented accurately by a tree. The evolution of genes in viruses and prokaryotes, of genomes in all organisms, and the inevitable noise that creeps into phylogenetic estimations, will all create patterns far more complicated than those portrayed by a simple tree diagram. Genetic restructuring and non-vertical transmission are largely overlooked by a methodological preference for phylogenetic trees and a deep-rooted expectation of tree-like evolution.
Demolishing Darwin's Tree: Eric Bapteste and the Network of Life - Evolution News & Views

Click to expand...

interesting, however some are saying the study does not disprove common decent. In which there would still be a huge need for missing links to be in fact, found.

http://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-tree-life-2009feb7.htm

gradyll said:

all of them.

any of them.

do you have a preference?

If yes, please provide some missing links.

As I suspect the fossil record is the evolutionists worst nightmare.

Click to expand...

Tiktalik.

Armoured said:

Tiktalik.

Click to expand...

Fossil footprints give land vertebrates a much longer history -- ScienceDaily
Even evoultion mythology put doubts on Tiktaalik. Of course when it comes to evolution all is need is to explain away the contradicting evidence. Evolution is dogma which all evidence has to be made to fit at all cost.
OOL research show how far man will go in supporting myths when all of nature is against it. Because of the water paradox some is even suggesting creating life without water.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-primal-soup-creating-life-without-water.html

Armoured said:

Tiktalik.

Click to expand...

tiktaalik not a transitional link: found here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac002158.html

is tiktaalik a transitional form or just a fish?

tiktaalik is a fish according to answers in genesis...

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” 5

In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?

Are the pectoral fins of Tiktaalik really legs?

Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.6 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

The limbs of tetrapods

The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, further away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The fins of fish (including Tiktaalik)

Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”

gradyll said:

tiktaalik is a fish according to answers in genesis...

Click to expand...