Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Loudmouth]

It's even more unlikely than most realize since the behaviors of even single celled organisms are 'intelligent'.

Those single celled organisms are the product of over 3.5 billion years of evolution, a mechanism that can increase intelligence and complexity.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying the experiment can never be used to prove that it doesnt have some degree of dependence on the experimenter and can never be used to dispute life is not a product intelligent design.

I think this speaks volumes to how some people approach the question of how life started.

This isn't about looking objectively at the evidence of how life could begin through natural processes. This is about producing enough doubt through smoke and mirrors to protect cherished beliefs that are themselves completely unevidenced.

 

[mzungu]

No to you first question. I'm saying the experiment can never be used to prove that it doesnt have some degree of dependence on the experimenter and can never be used to dispute life is not a product intelligent design. In addition it will never prove it was spotaneous.

Let's say you have to mix two fluids togther to produce life, each in its own test tube. A being has to combine those fluids. It doesn't matter how they do it. It still requires interaction as a result of their intelligent actions.

you fail to understand the scope of such experiments. They are conducted in order to understand the processes that take effect. Once the processes are understood then science can begin to understand the natural processes that can give rise to life. If we don't understand a process then we cannot come to a valid conclusion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with interaction of any intelligent being. Also the very notion that life came to be spontaneously is ludicrous and such fallacies are spread by creationists and not by science.

 

[jhwatts]

I think this speaks volumes to how some people approach the question of how life started.

This isn't about looking objectively at the evidence of how life could begin through natural processes. This is about producing enough doubt through smoke and mirrors to protect cherished beliefs that are themselves completely unevidenced.

I dont think so. Its about evaluating all possible inputs into the system and understanding how they have an effect on its output.

I cant help its a singularity.

You don't get to pick and choose what information produces the answer you are after. That really isn't very scientific.

 

[Strathos]

Each grain will follow the laws of physics. The hand that pushes the sand has an uneven surface and the sand grains are in a disorganised pack. A super computer can actually simulate the trajectory of each grain of sand.

Basically the more data one has the more accurate one will be able to calculate.

Everything in this universe must follow the laws of physics. This is a fact.

Which doesn't imply sentient involvement, intent or purpose in a way, shape or form.

The shape of planets isn't random. Once a certain critical point is reached, a sphere is the only possible outcome. The "organizer" of this non-random shape is not a god, soul or undetectable 7-headed dragon. It's just gravity.



I guess the answer to that would be that the laws of nature are deterministic. In that sense, the movement of objects in space can be accurately predicted if all the gravitational influences are known. If you drop an apple, it doesn't shoot into a random direction - it only falls down. And it doesn't fall at a random speed, it falls at 9.81 meters per second per second, slowed down by the resistance that applies at that altitude and due to the shape of the apple etc.

It seems to me that you simply ignore all this.

A formula which will include variables for the force used to throw them up, the angle at which they are thrown, the gravitational force of the earth, the shape of the surface on which they fall, the density of that surface, the density of the grains of sand, their mass, etc etc.

If you have all this information, you can perfectly calculate the exact location of every single grain thrown.

And here's the fun part: you could do that calculation with any input variable. The angle and the throwing force could be random and it wouldn't change anything about the formula. Only the location would change because the input variables did.

You guys are forgetting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that shows you can't perfectly predict a physical system like that.

 

[Mainframes]

Heisenberg Unncertainty Principle is only concerned with quantum physics and is completely negligible at the scale we are talking about. This is the same as ignoring relativistic effects at everyday velocity calculations.

 

[mzungu]

You guys are forgetting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that shows you can't perfectly predict a physical system like that.

You are wrong! Here read this excerpt from Uncertainty Principle

The uncertainty principle also called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or Indeterminacy Principle, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.

Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (about 10-34 joule-second, the value of the quantity h (where h is Planck's constant). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FYI, if you're going to allow for the concept of microscopic life to have formed spontaneously based upon a combination of "dumb luck" and time,

"Dumb luck", as you put it, is really only a small part of that process. Just like it's only a small part of the process of 2 H atoms and an O atom forming a water molecule. The "dumb luck" part is limited to the atoms meeting eachother in circumstances that allow them to combine into a molecule. The combining itself has nothing to do with "luck" and everything with natural laws.

then you cannot rule out the possibility that the universe itself 'evolved' into a living organism, long before microscopic life formed on Earth.

This makes no sense to me. There isn't a single definition of "life" that is applicable to the universe.

I tend to agree actually. For all I know life didn't form here on Earth at all, but rather it formed trillions of years ago and just got 'planted here' by a comet or asteroid a few billion years ago.

The universe is only 13.7 billion years old. So life did not form "trillions" of years ago. But I'll go ahead and assume that that was just figure of speech on your part.

 

[mzungu]

"Dumb luck", as you put it, is really only a small part of that process. Just like it's only a small part of the process of 2 H atoms and an O atom forming a water molecule. The "dumb luck" part is limited to the atoms meeting eachother in circumstances that allow them to combine into a molecule. The combining itself has nothing to do with "luck" and everything with natural laws.




This makes no sense to me. There isn't a single definition of "life" that is applicable to the universe.




The universe is only 13.7 billion years old. So life did not form "trillions" of years ago. But I'll go ahead and assume that that was just figure of speech on your part.

It is common practice for creationists to downplay natural laws in order to make room for an "Intelligent designer".

 

[DogmaHunter]

.

What an exercise in faith. What projection of outcome!

I used the word "likely". I didn't preach it as truth, nore would I dare to.
You need to understand the difference. "faith" has nothing to do with this.

It's purely a conclusion based on the things that we know are true. Given that knowledge, I consider it very likely that life is just extreme complex Chemistry and pretty much inevitable in a universe as big as this one.

Again, emphasis on "likely".

But you are still empty handed in evidence, and a believer "that it happened".

No. I'm not empty handed in evidence...
Fact: we are made of the most common materials in the universe
Fact: there are no rare or unnatural isotopes or elements present in our bodies
Fact: life had simple beginnings, as we can see in the fossil record: the simplest creatures are the oldest
Fact: all building blocks of life are found in nature; even in meteorites

All this combined leads me to consider it very likely that life is the result of a natural process.

Belief, faith, etc has nothing to do with this. I'm not preaching, I'm not proposing certainty, I'm not closed to evidence to the contrary,... I just consider it more likely then the alternative.

It is sad how people "lean" on Naturalism. And dramatically proselytize others to their faith events..

I don't lean on naturalism. I don't confine myself to -isms. I feel they are limiting my mind. I don't rule out unnaturalism (lol). I just don't consider things that are not in evidence or that can't be shown to be likely.

And please, don't pretend as if me thinking it's likely that life is the result of a natural process is even only remotely comparable to creationist's faith. Fundamentalist theists don't consider their religion "likely". They consider it certainty, with a closed mind to evidence of the opposite. To those people, if evidence comes up that doesn't fit their worldview, they consider the evidence to be wrong or false.

That's the exact opposite of what I do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know the story, exactly. But without experiments to back it up, that's all it is: a story. And an astonishingly unlikely one at that.

Evolution is not a story. Evolution is a fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

With a large sample, you will see a logarithmic decay with particles being ejected uniformly, (this is what makes radio-dating so reliable) but each individual decay is entirely random. YOu would not, for example, see a spike in decays as the sample approached it's half life in order to get to that half life.

With any random event, you will be able to plot it and get a general shape as a result of the nature and probabilities of that random event, but is we call anything that can be plotted after the fact non-random, we've just redefined "random" as something that doesn't exist

Am I answering your question?

.

Yes, actually. Very nice, thanks.

So I guess it indeed matters on the perspective.

Zoom in and one can't call it anything but random.
Zoom out and the probability distribution is not really random.

Right?

 

[Strathos]

Heisenberg Unncertainty Principle is only concerned with quantum physics and is completely negligible at the scale we are talking about. This is the same as ignoring relativistic effects at everyday velocity calculations.

But the quotes said it could be measured "exactly", which it can't be.

 

[mzungu]

But the quotes said it could be measured "exactly", which it can't be.

You have to define "exactly". An example being; when you measure distance in kilometres do you take the accuracy to include nanometres? Obviously not! It all depends on the scale of things.

 

[JustMeSee]

Random is a funny word. Things occur that we call random events, but they are actually the result of numerous factors. This neither proves or disproves the existence of a greater power, i.e. deity.

Abiogenesis may or may not have occurred on earth, but humans inventing new life from scratch would lend support that it occurred naturally in the past. This neither adds or subtracts from the idea of life evolves yesterday and today.

 

[ChetSinger]

Evolution is not a story. Evolution is a fact.

Irrelevant. This thread isn't about evolution we've seen, but about abiogenesis which we have not.

 

[mzungu]

Irrelevant. This thread isn't about evolution we've seen, but about abiogenesis which we have not.

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!

 

[Loudmouth]

Random is a funny word. Things occur that we call random events, but they are actually the result of numerous factors. This neither proves or disproves the existence of a greater power, i.e. deity.

Abiogenesis may or may not have occurred on earth, but humans inventing new life from scratch would lend support that it occurred naturally in the past. This neither adds or subtracts from the idea of life evolves yesterday and today.

Instead of random, we should be using the term "stochastic" which combines randomness and probability (as governed by physical laws). For example, when oxygen reacts with hydrogen you get a random interaction of molecules. However, this does not mean that you have equal probability of producing H3O or H2O. Each potential product has a probability determined by the reaction conditions. It is stochastic.

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont think so. Its about evaluating all possible inputs into the system and understanding how they have an effect on its output.

Can you show me a single person who has done that for a supernatural origin of life? No one has done that, have they?

Because supernatural claims are bereft of any reason or evidence, people are trying to tear down science so that they can claim a false equivalency between the two.

 

[Lost Angel]

Instead of random, we should be using the term "stochastic" which combines randomness and probability (as governed by physical laws). For example, when oxygen reacts with hydrogen you get a random interaction of molecules. However, this does not mean that you have equal probability of producing H3O or H2O. Each potential product has a probability determined by the reaction conditions. It is stochastic.

Thanks for the word, stochastic.