Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[keith99]

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!

But this thread proves that even if life is created in a lab there are some 'Christians' who will not accept it.

Some, not all, most or (I hope) a large percentage.

 

[mzungu]

But this thread proves that even if life is created in a lab there are some 'Christians' who will not accept it.

Some, not all, most or (I hope) a large percentage.

Yes, and the following will happen if man creates a living organism from scratch: Creationists will demand to see the same thing happen in nature without man's intervention. As you can see this is a no win situation for science vs creationism.

 

[variant]

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.

If a process or several processes are recreated in a laboratory that can have happened spontaneously under natural conditions then it would provide evidence for spontaneous generation of life being possible.

There is no proof in science only evidence, and showing biogenisis possible under lab conditions is absolutely evidence.

 

[Michael]

"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.

You kinda missed my point IMO. Those same natural laws as you put it are also theorized to give rise to macroscopic forms of intelligent organisms, not just life on Earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Actually that shows it requires great intelligence to create the event.

Finding life in the formation stage on earth would help though.
Or any tendency toward life from non-life.
Both missing.

 

[variant]

Actually that shows it requires great intelligence to create the event.

This would be an unsupported assertion, as we have no idea how much intelligence went into the original event if any.

 

[jhwatts]

This would be an unsupported assertion, as we have no idea how much intelligence went into the original event if any.

As long as we agree that some degree of intelligence went into it, then it can never be argued that it didn't require any.

 

[variant]

As long as we agree that some degree of intelligence went into it, then it can never be argued that it didn't require any.

The qualifier:

If any. <-signifies that no intelligence is a possibility.

So we do not agree.

 

[Sofaman]

But it would prove divinity isn't a requirement for creating life. It would make no comment on whether intelligence was required but merely show that life can come from non life if natrually occurring chemicals came together in a particular way

 

[ebia]

Things falling down isn't random,

Really. I just thought I was unlucky in having everything I drop hit the floor.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually that shows it requires great intelligence to create the event.

Finding life in the formation stage on earth would help though.
Or any tendency toward life from non-life.
Both missing.

So, does a freezer also show that it requires "great intelligence" to turn water into ice?

Think about that for a few seconds before responding.
See if you manage to see the obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As long as we agree that some degree of intelligence went into it, then it can never be argued that it didn't require any.

Does it require intelligence to turn water into ice?

You never responded to the analogy of the freezer.

 

[loveofourlord]

We can but can only produce expected values of outcomes and probabilities within a specific range of the true value. We never actually produce a true result of the process, that is if the process is truly random.

Regardless. Any interaction from a outsider removes it from a natural state to a state that has some dependance on the outsider.

what makes you think abiogenesis would ever be random? If it exists, and actually happened it be the outcome of none random things like chemistry, no more random then anything forming in nature. Sure the chemicles being in the right place might be random, but once there the outcome be none random.

I accept abiogenesis and some don't, but if it's real, then by that fact it be none random. No more random them water forming from oxygen and hydrogen.

 

[loveofourlord]

I agree with you that any such experiment must be orchestrated.

I'll go a step further. Any such experiment will be SO orchestrated that it will be indistinguishable from intelligent design. All cells perform about 200 or so necessary functions. Disabling even one of them makes the cell unviable. No one's ever going to mix chemicals together and come up with a cell. Heck, they can't even calculate reasonable odds of it ever happening in nature.

Btw, many of the ancients, and even Europeans into the Middle Ages, believed life arose spontaneously all the time. In our age, the more we learn about life the harder abiogenesis is to support. For example, thanks to ENCODE, we've learned that our DNA not only codes for tens of thousands of genes, but contains millions of additional switches that control those genes. We are truly marvelously made.

uhhhh...there have been experiments disabling various functions of cells and they went along quiet well, most famously one done with ecoli, where the knocked out the gene to allow a bacteria's flagellum to operate, and left it in a bit of food, it multiplied on the food it had, but quickly ran out, it's only option was to move to food nearby but the flagellum didn't work, within a few generations it got the flagellum back up and working, and amazingly enough, the fix wasn't even the original broken one, it found a whole new novel way to do the same process that was broken. So yeah....these things have been shown that evolution and mutations can create alot of things.

 

[ChetSinger]

uhhhh...there have been experiments disabling various functions of cells and they went along quiet well, most famously one done with ecoli, where the knocked out the gene to allow a bacteria's flagellum to operate, and left it in a bit of food, it multiplied on the food it had, but quickly ran out, it's only option was to move to food nearby but the flagellum didn't work, within a few generations it got the flagellum back up and working, and amazingly enough, the fix wasn't even the original broken one, it found a whole new novel way to do the same process that was broken. So yeah....these things have been shown that evolution and mutations can create alot of things.

Hello! I wrote too quickly and should've been more precise. Perhaps I should've better differentiated "functions", which are necessary (ingestion, repair, reproduction, etc.), with "genes", which are more flexible.

I had been thinking of the Minimal Genome Project run by Craig Venter, where they individually disabled each of the 482 genes in M. genitalium and discovered that 382 of them were required for survival.

 

[Loudmouth]

I had been thinking of the Minimal Genome Project run by Craig Venter, where they individually disabled each of the 482 genes in M. genitalium and discovered that 382 of them were required for survival.

Yes, required for a bacteria that is the product of 3 billion years of evolution that has created cross-dependencies between functions.

No one is saying that modern bacteria were produced by abiogenesis.

 

[Heissonear]

Does it require intelligence to turn water into ice?

You never responded to the analogy of the freezer.

.

When you lack clear evidence you turn to analogy, mate?

.

 

[ChetSinger]

Yes, required for a bacteria that is the product of 3 billion years of evolution that has created cross-dependencies between functions.

No one is saying that modern bacteria were produced by abiogenesis.

That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.

 

[Heissonear]

Hello! I wrote too quickly and should've been more precise. Perhaps I should've better differentiated "functions", which are necessary (ingestion, repair, reproduction, etc.), with "genes", which are more flexible.

I had been thinking of the Minimal Genome Project run by Craig Venter, where they individually disabled each of the 482 genes in M. genitalium and discovered that 382 of them were required for survival.

.
You are right, ChetSinger! Keep up the work!

It is normal for Naturalists to follow Speculation and interpretation. Without God in this World natural man feels at home calling the shots.

They struggle with how life came about by natural processes. The same for how the Moon came into existence. But Seculation brings comfort to those wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight. They have chosen the Tree of Knowledge. It's fruit is hanging out of their mouth every moment of every day of their lives. It was the original sin, but has become now an uncleaness multitudes turn to and walk in, and call it "how it is".

.

 

[Michael]

That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.

Keep in mind that even if it could be supported by experimentation, it really wouldn't falsify the concept of God, or the concept that God is a *necessary ingredient* for life. It wouldn't even be likely to demonstrate that the process was *accidental* since they will have to go out of their way to setup *exactly* the right conditions in the first place.

Even single celled organisms show signs of 'intelligent' behaviors. Where does 'awareness' (if nothing but environment) even come from in a single celled organism?

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner -- ScienceDaily
#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | DiscoverMagazine.com

For all we know, "awareness" itself is an *intrinsic* part of "nature". Without that intrinsic feature of nature/God, life and awareness as we understand it may not even be able to figure out how to manifest itself inside the myriad of physical forms that we can physically relate to.

Ultimately even the concept of abiogenesis is not a threat to theism, particularly any *natural* brand of theism.