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.
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!
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.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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Does it require intelligence to turn water into ice?
You never responded to the analogy of the freezer.
That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.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.
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.
That's a nice story, and I might begin to believe it if it's ever supported by experimentation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?