Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[jhwatts]

Fair enough, but demonstrating that something isn't random doesn't imply that it's consciously controlled.

Things falling down isn't random, but the force of gravity can hardly be considered intelligent.

Let's say we are in vacume on earth and we throw a hand full of sand up in the vacume. What dictates the location each place a grain of sand lands? Are the grains locations random?

 

[jhwatts]

Fair enough, but demonstrating that something isn't random doesn't imply that it's consciously controlled.

Things falling down isn't random, but the force of gravity can hardly be considered intelligent.

Let's say we are in vacume on earth and we throw a hand full of sand up in the vacume. What dictates the locations each place a grain of sand lands?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point being this. Any intervention of nonrandom interaction regardless of its form brings a system from a purely random state to a nonrandom state. What you refer to as natural(random) abiogenesis sudenly is no longer natural but now a function of the interaction from cognate human(creator).

Do I understand correctly that you are claiming here that if an experiment in the lab shows a successfull generation of living material from non-living material, that you would consider that only to be evidence that "intelligence" is required for life to form?

If yes, then I can only say that that is completely non-sensical and only shows how ignorant you are on what scientific experiments like that represent. Which isn't meant to be insulting by the way... Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. There's a LOT of stuff I'm ignorant about as well, and that's fine. It's easily cured if required... All it takes is some learning.

Let's illustrate with an extremely simple analogy how your idea is very wrong.

Consider a freezer. Just like in a hypothetical experiment for abiogenesis, the inside of the freezer is a controlled environment. Through technology, we control the environment inside this "lab" to be very cold.

If you put water inside this lab and close the door, it will turn into ice.
You wouldn't dare to say that this means that "intelligence" is required to transform water into ice, would you?

In a very real sense, the conditions inside the freezer are simply a recreation of the conditions of let's say the North Pole.

It simple means that if we have the same conditions in the outside natural world as we have in the controlled environment of the lab, water will freeze.

So, if we would set up a controlled environment in a lab and add naturally occuring molecules to it and those molecules then combine to form a living something... then it simply means that if the same conditions exist in the outside natural world containing the same molecules, the exact same thing would happen. Naturally. Without any "creator" interfering.

You need to think it through. And be honest about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You're still stuck between that rock and a hard place.

Random events happen all the time. The conditions of those events are recreated in the lab. As long as these conditions CAN occur in nature (no matter how small the probability), then you have a valid experiment to explain a natural phenomena.

What are the chances of 2 H atoms meeting an O atom in the correct circumstances, at the right temperature etc to form a water molecule? Probably not that big. Yet, I think you can agree that there's loads of water on this planet.

We can recreate those conditions in the lab and see water forming. Does that mean some sentient being manually created every water molecule on this planet?

Again: think.

 

[mzungu]

Let's say we are in vacume on earth and we throw a hand full of sand up in the vacume. What dictates the locations each place a grain of sand lands?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point being they can never be truly the same because of experimenters involvement. That is why it can never prove anything.

So, a freezer turning water into ice is not a valid experiment to test that low tempuratures at the north pole is what makes water turn into ice?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If it is not truly random then it must have been organized in some fashion.

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.

We are about to move into the wonderful world of statistical mechanics. Please explain to me how there are no truely random process in nature before we get there.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's say we are in vacume on earth and we throw a hand full of sand up in the vacume. What dictates the locations each place a grain of sand lands?

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.

 

[[serious]]

There are some intrinsically random things. For example, the decay of radioactive atoms. If you take an atom of uranium 238, when it decays into thorium 234 is random. The direction of the emitted alpha particle is random as well.

There are things that appear random because it's beyond our capacity to measure all relevant factors, but there are also things, especially at a small scale, which do appear to be wholly and entirely random.

 

[Old Ned]

My point being they can never be truly the same because of experimenters involvement. That is why it can never prove anything.

And once again, a misrepresentation of what Science does.
Science does not try to "Prove" things, it falsifies things.

When an observation has been made and a hypothesis formed, then experiments performed with results that seem to suggest the hypothesis is correct, it's then tested by a host of other scientists who all try to prove it is incorrect.
Once you get a bunch of scientists who all run a huge amount of tests on the hypothesis and all the results point to the same conclusion as the original hypothesis... then we can pretty much assume the hypothesis is correct.

Basically, when all the evidence points to the same thing then it's considered a Scientific Fact.

IF however other scientists get results that prove the hypothesis is flawed or outright incorrect, then it is either modified and the process starts again, or it is thrown out altogether.

In my opinion, can we ever actually know Abiogenesis happened?... I don't think so, but by recreating the environments and chemicals that were evident way back when, we can assert that this is the most likely and plausible series of events that lead to Abiogenesis.
this is how everything in Science works, this exact same series of ideas and experiments is why we have planes, PC's, phones, medicine, vehicles etc etc

Hope that clears up your misinformation about Science trying to prove things.

 

[jhwatts]

Do I understand correctly that you are claiming here that if an experiment in the lab shows a successfull generation of living material from non-living material, that you would consider that only to be evidence that "intelligence" is required for life to form?

If yes, then I can only say that that is completely non-sensical and only shows how ignorant you are on what scientific experiments like that represent. Which isn't meant to be insulting by the way... Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. There's a LOT of stuff I'm ignorant about as well, and that's fine. It's easily cured if required... All it takes is some learning.

Let's illustrate with an extremely simple analogy how your idea is very wrong.

Consider a freezer. Just like in a hypothetical experiment for abiogenesis, the inside of the freezer is a controlled environment. Through technology, we control the environment inside this "lab" to be very cold.

If you put water inside this lab and close the door, it will turn into ice.
You wouldn't dare to say that this means that "intelligence" is required to transform water into ice, would you?

In a very real sense, the conditions inside the freezer are simply a recreation of the conditions of let's say the North Pole.

It simple means that if we have the same conditions in the outside natural world as we have in the controlled environment of the lab, water will freeze.

So, if we would set up a controlled environment in a lab and add naturally occuring molecules to it and those molecules then combine to form a living something... then it simply means that if the same conditions exist in the outside natural world containing the same molecules, the exact same thing would happen. Naturally. Without any "creator" interfering.

You need to think it through. And be honest about it.

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.

 

[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 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 from as a result of their intelligent actions.

I agree; The ice that forms at the poles does so because of human interaction. We know this because when we freeze water at the lab it solidifies to form ice.
There happy now?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

You say that your answer is "no" to my question, but what follows is exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about.

In such an experiment, what would happen would simply be the creation of a certain environment and adding certain chemicals to that environment and then sit back and see what happens.

EXACTLY like what happens inside a freezer. We create a certain environment (very cold) and add certain chemicals to it (water) and then sit back and see what happens (it freezes).

This literally means that if such an environment exists in the natural world and that environment happens to contain the chemicals, then what will follow (without any intervention from anyone or anything) will be exactly the same as what happened in the experiment.

That's it.

You say "no" to my question, but it seems that you really mean "yes" instead.

In addition it will never prove it was spotaneous.

What it proves is that it is possible. And that's all that matters. If it can be possible to occur without sentient intervention, and thus purely the result of certain conditions and circumstances (again, exactly like the conditions and circumstances in which water freezes into ice), then the puzzle is actually solved. It doesn't even matter if we can't prove if such circumstances and conditions were once present on the planet. As long as it doesn't require anything that is impossible in the wild, then that's fine. There's also nothing at all that states that the origins of life must be found on earth. For all we know, life could have been planted here by meteorites after being formed elsewhere in the universe. There's certainly nothing which would make that impossible. We know of plenty of living things that are perfectly capable of surviving extreme temperatures and stuff.

I fail to see your problem with this.

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.

Why? This depends entirely on the fluids themselves. If one of those fluids is liquid plastic, then yes - since that doesn't occur naturally.

But life isn't made of non-naturally occuring elements. In fact, it's already been known for a long time now that the so-called "building blocks" of life CAN and DO occur naturally. We even find these organic compounds in meteorites. The final frontier is finding out what circumstances, catalysts, whatever are required to make these compounds come together into a self-replicating molecule. In case you didn't notice, life is made from the most common elements in the universe: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc. We aren't build from some rare isotope or something.

Carbon is also chemically the richest element there is. You can make more molecules with carbon then you can with all other elements combined. It really is no surprise that life on this planet is carbon based. If you look at the stuff we are made of, we are extremely common. You might have had a point with your "creator" if carbon would have been a very rare element and if the building blocks of life were nowhere to be found in nature. But that simply is not the case. At all. Not even by a long shot.

It doesn't matter how they do it.

You should just stick with this line. It doesn't matter to you how they do it. You'll never accept that your god of choice had nothing to do with it, no matter what. Just be honest and admit that this is your underlying motivation for these posts. It's starting to be pretty obvious to me. Am i right?

It still requires interaction as a result of their intelligent actions.

Does it require interaction to make water turn into ice in a freezer?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are things that appear random because it's beyond our capacity to measure all relevant factors, but there are also things, especially at a small scale, which do appear to be wholly and entirely random.

True, but - and correct me if I'm wrong - but the distribution of these probabilities aren't random.

It's impossible to predict (and thus 'random') when the next one will decay or which one will be next... but in the bigger picture, it still complies to the statistical probability of how long it takes on average (how else would we know the half-life thereof?).

So while quantum mechanics contains randomness and uncertainty, the statistical distribution thereof is deterministic and thus not random. Right?

Quantum physics is hard

 

[mzungu]

True, but - and correct me if I'm wrong - but the distribution of these probabilities aren't random.

It's impossible to predict (and thus 'random') when the next one will decay or which one will be next... but in the bigger picture, it still complies to the statistical probability of how long it takes on average (how else would we know the half-life thereof?).

So while quantum mechanics contains randomness and uncertainty, the statistical distribution thereof is deterministic and thus not random. Right?

Quantum physics is hard

Everything is based on probability.

 

[jhwatts]

You say that your answer is "no" to my question, but what follows is exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about.

In such an experiment, what would happen would simply be the creation of a certain environment and adding certain chemicals to that environment and then sit back and see what happens.

EXACTLY like what happens inside a freezer. We create a certain environment (very cold) and add certain chemicals to it (water) and then sit back and see what happens (it freezes).

This literally means that if such an environment exists in the natural world and that environment happens to contain the chemicals, then what will follow (without any intervention from anyone or anything) will be exactly the same as what happened in the experiment.

That's it.

You say "no" to my question, but it seems that you really mean "yes" instead.




What it proves is that it is possible. And that's all that matters. If it can be possible to occur without sentient intervention, and thus purely the result of certain conditions and circumstances (again, exactly like the conditions and circumstances in which water freezes into ice), then the puzzle is actually solved. It doesn't even matter if we can't prove if such circumstances and conditions were once present on the planet. As long as it doesn't require anything that is impossible in the wild, then that's fine. There's also nothing at all that states that the origins of life must be found on earth. For all we know, life could have been planted here by meteorites after being formed elsewhere in the universe. There's certainly nothing which would make that impossible. We know of plenty of living things that are perfectly capable of surviving extreme temperatures and stuff.

I fail to see your problem with this.



Why? This depends entirely on the fluids themselves. If one of those fluids is liquid plastic, then yes - since that doesn't occur naturally.

But life isn't made of non-naturally occuring elements. In fact, it's already been known for a long time now that the so-called "building blocks" of life CAN and DO occur naturally. We even find these organic compounds in meteorites. The final frontier is finding out what circumstances, catalysts, whatever are required to make these compounds come together into a self-replicating molecule. In case you didn't notice, life is made from the most common elements in the universe: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc. We aren't build from some rare isotope or something.

Carbon is also chemically the richest element there is. You can make more molecules with carbon then you can with all other elements combined. It really is no surprise that life on this planet is carbon based. If you look at the stuff we are made of, we are extremely common. You might have had a point with your "creator" if carbon would have been a very rare element and if the building blocks of life were nowhere to be found in nature. But that simply is not the case. At all. Not even by a long shot.




You should just stick with this line. It doesn't matter to you how they do it. You'll never accept that your god of choice had nothing to do with it, no matter what. Just be honest and admit that this is your underlying motivation for these posts. It's starting to be pretty obvious to me. Am i right?



Does it require interaction to make water turn into ice in a freezer?

I seem to be treading on thin ice here.

I see several issues with your response and will have to respond later. I am on a cell phone. It is to large to respond on my phone.


On a second note, you are trying to assume a closed system and it really isn't.

I realize this is rubbing elbows with "you wasn't there so just don't know argument" but it isnt the same thing. I hate that argument by the way.

 

[ChetSinger]

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 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.

 

[Dizredux]

Help me out a little, I am not a chemist.

It is my understanding that chemistry is not particularly random.

Aspects of it are but overall under certain conditions specific things will happen, every single time. That is not random although parts of it may be.

Example: Under certain conditions a snowflake will form. Which molecules are part of that snowflake is probably random but that a snowflake will form is not.

Since this is not my field, could someone with the proper background correct me if I am wrong?

So if my reasoning is at least somewhat valid, then under certain conditions with enough time, formation of life is almost inevitable.

This is not my idea but I have read of formation of life being almost a certainty under proper conditions a number of times.


Dizredux

 

[Michael]

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.

I should also point that if we do indeed live inside of an intelligent living universe, even the fact that life may have formed 'naturally' on Earth in no way precludes the concept of a living God having a hand in that natural process. In fact a living universe would allow a natural creator to be involved in the entire evolutionary process from the design of the very first form of microscopic life, to the most advanced forms of life that we see on Earth today.

Even the theory of abiogenesis is no threat to theism in the final analysis.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There are some intrinsically random things. For example, the decay of radioactive atoms. If you take an atom of uranium 238, when it decays into thorium 234 is random. The direction of the emitted alpha particle is random as well.

There are things that appear random because it's beyond our capacity to measure all relevant factors, but there are also things, especially at a small scale, which do appear to be wholly and entirely random.

Are they actually random though?

I could see a day where we discover some underlying principles that govern radioactive decay in a non-random sense. Perceived randomness does not mean the process is indeed random.