Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Loudmouth]

Fantastic, you say that it’s possible that abiogenesis could be proven wrong but unlikely. So then you must also admit that it is possible that you have been living by faith all this time.

I always find it interesting when theists use "faith" as a term of derision.

I don't know how life started. I have yet to see any solid evidence that abiogenesis did occur. However, I don't see my ignorance as a place to insert deities. That is where we differ.

I also see how successful the scientific method has been, and how many times supernatural explanations have failed. If I were actively seeking the answer as to how life began, the scientific method is the best method to go with. As an example, if you were investigating an infectious diseases, you would probably assume that there was a natural cause, such as a microorganism, and use the scientific method to find the answer. I doubt that you would say, "Demons must be causing it, so we will just stop all scresearch and assume I am right."

So to follow your faulty logic we can say this: for the event of evolution to start, abiogenesis is not a valid option. For the simple reason that abiogenesis must be shown to exist first, and as we know, evolution can't happen unless abiogenesis happens first

If we accept the scientific and natural theory of germs, do we also have to accept that the ultimate origin of infectious microorganisms had to be a natural process as well? Are you saying that if you accept a supernatural origin for life that you must reject the natural theory of germs?

You previously mentioned that abiogenesis could happen if the “right conditions” are reproduced. What could be more favorable than the conditions we have today?

First, the presence of oxygen which is extremely reactive. Second, the nearly ubiquitous presence of RNases that are released by life. These enzymes will chop up any nascent RNA replicators. Third, there are millions of species that are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution which can easily outcompete any new lifeforms.

The modern Earth is a very poor environment for abiogenesis.

 

[RealityCheck]

AHHH, Yehhh. Okay. It's like this: Life is something that is living!!!!

Define living.


$100 says you're going to say "something that's alive."

 

[lifetips]

Define living.


$100 says you're going to say "something that's alive."

Make that $100,000. Yes, something living is certainly alive

 

[[serious]]

Make that $100,000. Yes, something living is certainly alive

Do you really not have any idea how to define living? Wow. I mean, as a science teacher, to see someone whom I assume to be an adult who has no idea how to define basic terminology is depressing.

 

[lifetips]

I always find it interesting when theists use "faith" as a term of derision.

I don't know how life started. I have yet to see any solid evidence that abiogenesis did occur. However, I don't see my ignorance as a place to insert deities. That is where we differ.

We sure do differ and I'm glad you are honest about abiogenesis. True ignorance is the rejection of God. We use the term faith because of the simple fact that naturalists have it, and lots of it.

I also see how successful the scientific method has been, and how many times supernatural explanations have failed. If I were actively seeking the answer as to how life began, the scientific method is the best method to go with. As an example, if you were investigating an infectious diseases, you would probably assume that there was a natural cause, such as a microorganism, and use the scientific method to find the answer. I doubt that you would say, "Demons must be causing it, so we will just stop all scresearch and assume I am right."
If we accept the scientific and natural theory of germs, do we also have to accept that the ultimate origin of infectious microorganisms had to be a natural process as well? Are you saying that if you accept a supernatural origin for life that you must reject the natural theory of germs?

No idea, I have no interest in examening these types of comparisons, only abiogenesis with the person I was discussing it with.

The modern Earth is a very poor environment for abiogenesis.

I could agree more! ANY environment, good or bad, is not ideal for abiogenesis because non-life cannot create life anywhere in any environment, period.

 

[lifetips]

Do you really not have any idea how to define living? Wow. I mean, as a science teacher, to see someone whom I assume to be an adult who has no idea how to define basic terminology is depressing.

Dude... get a grip. I can define anything you like, I'm just not interested in time wasting side tracks. Would you like me to also define DNA, RNA, Molecules, cells, proteins, genomes and an endless list of sidetracks? If you want some constructive comments lets discuss abiogenesis and the EVIDENCE you have for it. That is all I'm interested in doing on this particular post.

 

[Smidlee]

Ah, but no one can INVENT the horse drawn buggy today.

Since all of the examples of how a protocell could arise are are observable in the lab, the example mirrors exactly the horse drawn buggy analogy.

Watch:

Modern (life/cars) could not have arisen from (prebiotic earth/pre industrial revolution society) thus, modern (cells/cars) are evidence that (protocells/non self powered vehicles) must have also been impossible in the (prebiotic/preindustrial) world. The structure of the argument is the same. Now, I don't know any scientist that could build an entire horse drawn buggy by hand with only period tools, but that doesn't support the divine buggy creation hypothesis. Especially if we aren't giving him as long as the wagon would have taken to be build at the time. If it took even a mere million years before life began, asking scientists to recreate it in a few decades is an unreasonable demand. They are closing in on that goal using modern methods, but the fact that in 50-60 years since the miller urey experiment we haven't gotten all the way to a fully functioning artificial cell does not imply that it could not happen over hundreds of millions of years in a much larger pool of reactants.

Do you think it's not possible for a scientist to build horse driven buggy? Who questions the existence of horse driven buggy since they exist today? Modern cells are the only cells known to man that ever existed. I totally disagree it took millions of years before life began, Life was in the beginning. Life is more than matter and energy and is that which gives matter and energy (universe) it's meaning.

If you want to argue that it couldn't happen, you would have to identify what step couldn't happen. I'll even give you a list of possible steps:


Formation of:
1. lipid bubbles that self propagate in heat convention currents.
2. spontaneous polymerization of bases
3. self catalyzing chains of bases
4. biochemically active chains of bases
5. sequence specific use of chains of bases
6. sequence specific use of chains of bases requiring external input
7. method of increasing permeability of the membrane to that imput
8. active transport of that input.
9. active management of the internal environment using the input and chains of bases.

I think that takes us to all requirements for it to be formally considered alive. Keep in mind that from step 3 on natural selection is going to be able to effectively spread each change.

After step 3, natural selection becomes nothing but magic that somehow create all known life. Even when it comes to evolution NS power is doubted (neutral evolution). This sounds a lot like Sci-Fi where people are beamed on-board the Enterprise to travel to the next galaxy.

Life on it's most simplest level are true self-replicators; finding it's own energy source, converting that energy into work, finding it's materials to build it's parts, assembles those parts, adapting to it's environment and able to pass own that knowledge.

I could agree more! ANY environment, good or bad, is not ideal for abiogenesis because non-life cannot create life anywhere in any environment, period.

Haven't you watch Superman? I thought everyone knew something or someone from another planet can have super powers when they come to Earth. Both Superman and abiogenesis gets it's super powers from the sun.

 

[RealityCheck]

Make that $100,000. Yes, something living is certainly alive

Aaaaaand.... what qualities make it alive?



Hint: Saying "the fact that its living" is not the correct answer.

 

[RealityCheck]

Make that $100,000. Yes, something living is certainly alive

How about I make it a little easier for you.


Here's a few things that are either alive or not alive.

1) A cat
2) Pond algae
3) Sugar
4) Graphite

Which ones are alive and which ones are not? What do the alive things have that define them as "alive" and which the other ones lack so that they are not alive?

 

[Smidlee]

How about I make it a little easier for you.


Here's a few things that are either alive or not alive.

1) A cat
2) Pond algae
3) Sugar
4) Graphite

Which ones are alive and which ones are not? What do the alive things have that define them as "alive" and which the other ones lack so that they are not alive?

I would say both 1 and 2 are alive but not on the same level which is why it's so hard to nailed down a definition. We can only relate to what we already know. Life as in art and music is something (not materially ) build into our conscious. Both a living cell and a dead cell can be made out of the same stuff so it's more than just the sum of the atoms.

Life is something we identify in ourselves as we have to ability to gather energy , convert it into work, find raw materials, build structures and machines, adapt to our environment, and pass on our knowledge to the next generation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would say both 1 and 2 are alive but not on the same level which is why it's so hard to nailed down a definition. We can only relate to what we already know. Life as in art and music is something (not materially ) build into our conscious. Both a living cell and a dead cell can be made out of the same stuff so it's more than just the sum of the atoms.

Life is something we identify in ourselves as we have to ability the gather energy , convert it into work, find raw materials, build structures and machines, adapt to our environment, and pass on our knowledge to the next generation.

Not at the same level, as if something can be more fundamentally alive than something else like that -_-

Build machines, really? By that definition none of the things listed would be considered alive.

 

[Smidlee]

Not at the same level, as if something can be more fundamentally alive than something else like that -_-

Build machines, really? By that definition none of the things listed would be considered alive.

A living cell is a city of nano-machines. A dead cell no longer has the ability to build those nano-machines. Again we identify life from within ourselves so it's more than just building machines as a computer can be programed to build machines. God is the ultimate Life; The Most High.

 

[[serious]]

After step 3, natural selection becomes nothing but magic that somehow create all known life. Even when it comes to evolution NS power is doubted (neutral evolution). This sounds a lot like Sci-Fi where people are beamed on-board the Enterprise to travel to the next galaxy.

Ok, so you think that step 3 can't get to step 4? is what can't happen? You think that self catalyzing chains cannot become biochemically active?

I'm actually not even sure where to begin on explaining this one to you because I'm not sure why you think they couldn't become biochemically active.

If you are just objecting to the term natural selection, we can substitute in, "alterations that make them better replicators will become more common in the population and tend towards fixation."

 

[PsychoSarah]

A living cell is a city of nano-machines. A dead cell no longer has the ability to build those nano-machines. Again we identify life from within ourselves so it's more than just building machines as a computer can be programed to build machines. God is the ultimate Life; The Most High.

So what? Nonliving things can replicate themselves just fine, and that is all they need to be able to do to establish the beginnings of biological life, as the process makes mistakes, or outside proteins connect, become more complex, the unit replicates itself, increasing the number of more complex nonliving replicating masses until they begin to resemble living cells.

 

[lifetips]

Hi Dogmahunter,

Far out! Too many posts here to respond to (other posters as well) with limited time. I would rather not post than give lazy answers. Never mind, as much as I love to debate these issues we will never "convert" each other to our belief systems so it's probably a waste of time putting in the effort. Anyway, not to worry, as we will all meet again when we stand before God and give account of our lives!

God bless you all
Paul

 

[RealityCheck]

Dude... get a grip. I can define anything you like, I'm just not interested in time wasting side tracks. Would you like me to also define DNA, RNA, Molecules, cells, proteins, genomes and an endless list of sidetracks? If you want some constructive comments lets discuss abiogenesis and the EVIDENCE you have for it. That is all I'm interested in doing on this particular post.

The point is that this thread is about life arising out of non-life - abiogenesis. For that to be a meaningful discussion, you have to have a dividing line between what constitutes life and what does not. Once you have such a line, *then* the discussion is whether or not non-life can cross that divide over to life by some mechanism or natural process or whatever have you.

You couldn't even draw a line between what's life and what's non-life. You therefore failed at your own discussion topic.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi Dogmahunter,

Far out! Too many posts here to respond to (other posters as well) with limited time. I would rather not post than give lazy answers. Never mind, as much as I love to debate these issues we will never "convert" each other to our belief systems so it's probably a waste of time putting in the effort. Anyway, not to worry, as we will all meet again when we stand before God and give account of our lives!

God bless you all
Paul

Really? Less than a full page of posts and you can't respond?

Sounds more like you realized you were getting cornered and you don't want to have to give solid and concrete answers that would later come back to bite you.

 

[RealityCheck]

I would say both 1 and 2 are alive but not on the same level which is why it's so hard to nailed down a definition. We can only relate to what we already know. Life as in art and music is something (not materially ) build into our conscious. Both a living cell and a dead cell can be made out of the same stuff so it's more than just the sum of the atoms.

I disagree with the first statement that they're "not alive on the same level" until you can define the difference.

Life in art and music is not "life" as we're discussing it here. We're talking purely biological life. What biologically defines "life" from "non-life"?

Life is something we identify in ourselves as we have to ability to gather energy , convert it into work, find raw materials, build structures and machines, adapt to our environment, and pass on our knowledge to the next generation.

Nah.... biological life is simpler than that. By your definition, plants would not be living.

 

[lifetips]

Really? Less than a full page of posts and you can't respond?

Sounds more like you realized you were getting cornered and you don't want to have to give solid and concrete answers that would later come back to bite you.

Cornered? No chance of that. I could debate all day long with you guys without any problem whatsoever and I love doing it but that's the problem. It takes hours to respond properly to posts and there are way too many individual points to respond to properly. But in the meantime, keep living by faith as you are currently doing .

From a Christian perspective my time is better spent on others who post on different forums here who are seeking God and would like to communicate with those who are already Christ followers. Like I said, you will never convince me and I will never convince you, so it's time wasted for little gain except for maybe a little bit of pride at gaining a small victory over a particular point. To me that's very shallow. Just to summarize, for all the posters here who see my belief in God and creation as a pie in the sky deluded fantasy, tell me this: what can I lose if it all turned out to be wrong? Of course it won't, but for arguments sake if it did?

In 100 years time we will all be dead and buried and none of us will have gained anything. You won't be able to roll over in your grave and wave the midddle finger at me and say "I told you so," because like me, you will be dead and neither of us will have gained or lost anything. But what if you are wrong, and there is a God and we are accountable to him? You are taking a very big gamble and its one that you have already lost because there is a God and one day you will have to stand before him and give an account of your lives.

See you in eternity. Jesus is Lord, Paul

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi Dogmahunter,

Far out! Too many posts here to respond to (other posters as well) with limited time. I would rather not post than give lazy answers. Never mind, as much as I love to debate these issues we will never "convert" each other to our belief systems so it's probably a waste of time putting in the effort. Anyway, not to worry, as we will all meet again when we stand before God and give account of our lives!

God bless you all
Paul

"Far out"? Were you 18 in 1969 or something? ( )

Anyhow, I think I can summarise the core of the issue for you:
- don't misrepresent my acceptance of abiogenesis hypothesis. Considering something to be "likely" based on what is known is not the same as having dogmatic faith.

- don't misrepresent the hypothesis itself: it hypothises a series of chemical reactions that form the basis of first organic molecules and then replicating molecules subject to darwinian processes. This is not magic, but Chemistry

- scientific theories and hypothesis can be wrong by definition. But even when shown wrong, that doesn't make any religious shennanigans correct.

- I accept science in the way science is done: tentatively. Open for new evidence, with no emotional attachment to certain explanations. If what I accept to be true is shown wrong tomorrow, I'll stop accepting it.

- experimentation in controlled conditions reflects what would happen what would happen in nature given the same conditions. It does not imply "intelligent intervention" in any way, shape or form.


Lastly, I'm not here to convert anyone. Being a dogmahunter, I am allergic at anyone taking anyone's word for anything. I don't expect anyone to "just believe me". In fact, I advice everyone against such practice.

All I want in discussions like this is simply that you learn the correct ideas. Not that you accept these ideas. But it's clear that when I hear people like you speak about abiogenesis, evolution etc... you really don't know what you are talking about. The ideas you are arguing against are NOT the actual ideas. You are arguing against misrepresentations thereof.

You don't have to accept abiogenesis or evolution or any other theory / hypothesis. But at least, if you wish to argue against (or for) them, learn what it says and don't misrepresent them.