Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[ChetSinger]

What is the difference?

Do you agree that in Big Bang cosmology, our universe's time and space begin at the start of the Big Bang? If you do, there's nothing for us to discuss here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you agree that in Big Bang cosmology, our universe's time and space begin at the start of the Big Bang? If you do, there's nothing for us to discuss here.

Do you agree that a cloud starts with condensation?

 

[[serious]]

Do you agree that in Big Bang cosmology, our universe's time and space begin at the start of the Big Bang? If you do, there's nothing for us to discuss here.

Time appears to by some interpretations. The visible universe also appears to have been a singularity at that time, or at least some singularity analog. Whether that singularity was all there was is unknown. I don't know of any particular reason to assume it was.

 

[ChetSinger]

Do you agree that a cloud starts with condensation?

Since you ignored my question, I'll ignore yours.

 

[ChetSinger]

Time appears to by some interpretations. The visible universe also appears to have been a singularity at that time, or at least some singularity analog. Whether that singularity was all there was is unknown. I don't know of any particular reason to assume it was.

Again, I'm no cosmologist, but in the Big Bang cosmology space itself appeared, and is still growing. Which is weird, and wasn't how I imagined a "big bang". I imagined it as an explosion into existing space, which is how most people do. But it's not that at all.

The "balloon and dots" analogy is how I was taught. Here it is, if you haven't yet run across it:

Where is the centre of the universe?

 

[stevevw]

Cells with DNA are modern cells that are the result of biological evolution, yes. But Abiogenesis is not a process that ends with DNA based cellular life. DNA based cellular life evolved from simpler forms of life.

So how did the simple life evolve into more complex multi celled life that has DNA and can reproduce with say an embryo. There would be thousands of unique and complex things that had to happen and much of it would have depended on 2 or even many parts being present at the same time and all interlocking and fitting together like a jig saw puzzle. This had to happen with that prior info being there to create it. So a random and blind process is suppose to build these highly complex prototypes of life. How could some of these things happen all at once and fit all together by a fluke of nature.

The odds are highly stacked against it happening. Yet science says given enough time it could. But even that seems unreal as we are not just talking about 1 or 2 fluky things occurring by 100s if not 1000s. To me this is similar to the evolution of complex parts and systems that can evolve in a creature that doesn't have that in the first place. Mutations are mostly deletions and rarely beneficial. Gene are copied from what is already existing. Any variations are from what is already there. It may change things that are existing like color or size or give hair and lack of something but it cannot create new info that will make something completely new that require new genetic info that wasn't there in the first place.

New info can be introduced into a gene pool from outside such as with HGT. But I cant see how it can be introduced within when its not there in the first place. No amount of mixing and recoding is going to make the type of genetics that are needed for more complete tasks and features if they are not there in the first place.

I'ld say, the moment an organic self-replicating molecule exists that is subject to darwinian processes and mechanisms.

See thats at a point where it has to gain all that info that it hasn't got like growing a heart and eyes and limbs ect. That info is not there in a simple self replicating organism.

This is not really true though. How such things can and do happen is well understood and well explained in biology.

I'm not sure about that do you have a link. I know they try to explain it but I dont think they have proved it. Experiments with the fruit flies hasn't produced any different and new features like giving the fly a tail or grass hopper antennas. It has only changed the existing features and in fact over time most of the flies have become less healthy and functional. They have only created poorer versions on the whole but with the same features.

As they exist today. It's not only the parts themselves that evolve, it's also their function within the whole.

Yes but if you truly go into what is involved in a creature taking on a new feature it hasnt got its not so simple as people make out. They just imagine a lung growing or wings growing. But there are all the blood vessels, nerves, capillaries, tissue, ligaments, connections to the brain ect. One cant function without the other. Yet darwins evolution says that this can happen in small incremental steps. So its hard to imagine a part of something growing. Or the genetics for say the heart muscle coming without the nerve connections or brain signals coming at the same time.

Just like convergent evolution between species... There are plenty of plants that depend on a specific type of insect for reproduction for example. Likewise, these insects depend on those flowers for food.
Take away the plant and the insect dies.
Take away the insect and the plant can't reproduce.

But thats like saying there was a fluke that the insect and the flower came at the same time by random chance. It was so perfectly timed so that each could survive. This is the same for body parts and systems that depend on each other. Sometimes it may be many more than 2 occurrence that need to happen at the same time but many. Then it begins to get a little unbelievable that they could all form at the same time. That a random and blind process could do that.

This is not really true either.
Take the human eye for example. If an engineer at Sony would design a camera that roughly works in the same manner, he would be fired instantly for such amateurish and chaotic design.

All the wiring (the nerves) is actually found in front of the light-sensitive cells. These wires come together at the back of the eye and go to the brain through the back. This place is called the "blind spot". Our brain has to put in extra effort to "fill in the blanks" to correct for this. This is the kind of tinkering we expect from a blind process like evolution. It's not what we expect from some super-intelligent engineer.

The squid for example, doesn't have this problem.

Well it could be thats the way it needs to be for us humans. Our eyes are very unique and despite the comparison to a squid we can see and use our eyes a lot better. It could also have to do with our brains as we also have a greater depths of perception. Who knows why it is this way and it doesn't necessarily mean its badly wired. We still have yet to discover things. But at the end of the day our eyes work perfectly well just how they should be for us. But they are still highly complex and amazing and I just cant see how they could evolve from nothing more or less. Even a simple eye has to come from somewhere and the genetics were not there in the first place to make them. Nor could random mutations create the info to do it as it would need new info. Mutations are normally a mistake in the copying process not a beneficial thing that cant create complex functioning features. Eyes are not a mutational error.

Natural Selection is not a random process.
Evolution as a process holds random ingredients, yes (mutation being one of them). But selection is far from random.

I can understand that a variation in the genetics from existing genetics in a group could be taken on as the ability is already there. In fact i believe that its almost pre designed that way. There is enough room for adaptation withing existing genetics to mold a group around a fair amount of environmental situations. Maybe even certain changes in their genetics is favored in certain circumstances. But random mutations giving positive productive changes that grow functional new features is that are not withing the genetics of that gene pool is hard to believe. Considering that they are most neutral or deleterious it would take a lot of positive mutations which I m not sure are even available to make something that is not an error and would be rejected.

Blind, yes. In the sense that there is no end-goal in mind for any specific design. As in: homo sapiens was not "meant" to exist. It just turned out this way. It could have just as well be completely different. Had that asteroid not hit us 65 million years ago, chances are big that dino's would still dominate.

Thats what I find hard to believe. That this process could have made everything on earth. Basically a error in the copying process created the most complex and amazing animal kingdom from an organism that had none of the features we see today. Even from the point of chemicals to that organism that was floating in the primaeval soup was an amazingly complex process and the same principles apply. Creating something that looks like its designed from a random and blind process from more or less nothing being there in the first place. We think we are clever when we make something so complex yet here we have something far more coded for life and looking some well put together coming from a fluke. Its like nature is masquerading as God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you ignored my question, I'll ignore yours.

It answers your question.

Do you agree that clouds start with condensation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

...enormous wall of text....

Ow boy.

And the depressing part is... I feel compelled to respond in detail. PsychoSarah is going to hate me. lol.

 

[Loudmouth]

So how did the simple life evolve into more complex multi celled life that has DNA and can reproduce with say an embryo. There would be thousands of unique and complex things that had to happen and much of it would have depended on 2 or even many parts being present at the same time and all interlocking and fitting together like a jig saw puzzle. This had to happen with that prior info being there to create it. So a random and blind process is suppose to build these highly complex prototypes of life. How could some of these things happen all at once and fit all together by a fluke of nature. [/quote

You need to show that they would need to happen all at once, something you haven't done.

New info can be introduced into a gene pool from outside such as with HGT. But I cant see how it can be introduced within when its not there in the first place.

Do you think reality is limited to your limited knowledge?

No amount of mixing and recoding is going to make the type of genetics that are needed for more complete tasks and features if they are not there in the first place.

Evidence?

I'm not sure about that do you have a link. I know they try to explain it but I dont think they have proved it. Experiments with the fruit flies hasn't produced any different and new features like giving the fly a tail or grass hopper antennas. It has only changed the existing features and in fact over time most of the flies have become less healthy and functional. They have only created poorer versions on the whole but with the same features.

So we haven't seen millions of years worth of evolution in the span of fifty years. Why is that a problem?

Yes but if you truly go into what is involved in a creature taking on a new feature it hasnt got its not so simple as people make out. They just imagine a lung growing or wings growing. But there are all the blood vessels, nerves, capillaries, tissue, ligaments, connections to the brain ect. One cant function without the other. Yet darwins evolution says that this can happen in small incremental steps. So its hard to imagine a part of something growing. Or the genetics for say the heart muscle coming without the nerve connections or brain signals coming at the same time.

I can show you animals with tissue and nerves, but no brains. Jellyfish don't have brains, but they do have nerves.

I can show you animals with tissues but no capillaries, no nerves, and no ligaments. Sponges have tissues, but none of the rest.

Contrary to you claims, they don't have to be there all at once.

But thats like saying there was a fluke that the insect and the flower came at the same time by random chance. It was so perfectly timed so that each could survive.

Insects show up early in the fossil record, well before flowering plants do.

This is the same for body parts and systems that depend on each other. Sometimes it may be many more than 2 occurrence that need to happen at the same time but many. Then it begins to get a little unbelievable that they could all form at the same time. That a random and blind process could do that.

Given everything else you have been wrong about, why should we take your word on it?

 

[[serious]]

Again, I'm no cosmologist, but in the Big Bang cosmology space itself appeared, and is still growing. Which is weird, and wasn't how I imagined a "big bang". I imagined it as an explosion into existing space, which is how most people do. But it's not that at all.

The "balloon and dots" analogy is how I was taught. Here it is, if you haven't yet run across it:

Where is the centre of the universe?

It's not that simple. That's kind of a first approximation at understanding.

Let's take that balloon analogy. Sure, we can see that as the balloon inflates, points get further away from each other. Now, our little ant crawling over the surface sees that and says, "wow, my balloon universe must have been a single point at some point in the distant past!" And he's right. But does the part of the balloon that is causally related to him represent the whole balloon? What if the balloon was infinitely large? He would still see the stretching as it inflated and all those points he sees would trace back to the same point as he calculated back, but the balloon would still have infinite points beyond his detection.

We see stars and can trace those stars back to a start. But the scope of that underlying balloon is unknown.

 

[Smidlee]

Well it could be thats the way it needs to be for us humans. Our eyes are very unique and despite the comparison to a squid we can see and use our eyes a lot better. It could also have to do with our brains as we also have a greater depths of perception. Who knows why it is this way and it doesn't necessarily mean its badly wired. We still have yet to discover things. But at the end of the day our eyes work perfectly well just how they should be for us. But they are still highly complex and amazing and I just cant see how they could evolve from nothing more or less. Even a simple eye has to come from somewhere and the genetics were not there in the first place to make them. Nor could random mutations create the info to do it as it would need new info. Mutations are normally a mistake in the copying process not a beneficial thing that cant create complex functioning features. Eyes are not a mutational error.

In order for us to see we need more than just eyes, We also need the optic nerve, digital code and the visual cortex. This is something beyond the ability of our engineers. Also our cameras are not 100% recyclable unlike our eyes.
We now understand Muller cells act like fiber optic cable which deals with bad design argument. Also the back of the retina needs a large blood flow so there are good reasons camera eyes are wired that way.

Here is another example of the "bad design" myth got busted :
http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/11/04/fishy-movement-solves-mystery

"An engineer building a robot would likely avoid these movements because they seem wasteful."
"One of the things they teach you in engineering is that you can't have both stability and maneuverability at the same time," said Noah Cowan ..
"Animals are a lot more clever with their mechanics than we often realize," Cowan said. "By using just a little extra energy to control the opposing forces they create during those small shifts in direction, animals seem to increase both stability and maneuverability when they swim, run or fly."

Notice they believe in clever animals instead of giving credit to God. It's modern day calf worship.

 

[ChetSinger]

It's not that simple. That's kind of a first approximation at understanding.

Let's take that balloon analogy. Sure, we can see that as the balloon inflates, points get further away from each other. Now, our little ant crawling over the surface sees that and says, "wow, my balloon universe must have been a single point at some point in the distant past!" And he's right. But does the part of the balloon that is causally related to him represent the whole balloon? What if the balloon was infinitely large? He would still see the stretching as it inflated and all those points he sees would trace back to the same point as he calculated back, but the balloon would still have infinite points beyond his detection.

We see stars and can trace those stars back to a start. But the scope of that underlying balloon is unknown.

I hear you and I'm fine with that. I'm just hoping you understand that you're beyond Big Bang cosmology when you explore those paths.

 

[ChetSinger]

It answers your question.

Do you agree that clouds start with condensation?

It didn't. If you've got time for this kind of round-and-round you'll have to find someone else.

 

[Loudmouth]

In order for us to see we need more than just eyes, We also need the optic nerve, digital code and the visual cortex.

Is that true for all life? Nope.

Box jellyfish have eyes, but no optic nerve and no visual cortex to speak of.

One of a box jellyfish’s multiple sets of eyes allows it to see the world above the water so it can navigate, a study indicates. | LiveScience

Basal chordates like the lancet don't have anything close to our visual cortex, yet they have functioning eyes.

This is something beyond the ability of our engineers.

Non-sequitur.

We now understand Muller cells act like fiber optic cable which deals with bad design argument.

Having light shine through nerve cells before hitting our photoreceptors is a big reduction in both light collection and resolution. There is no rescuing that. Also, the cephalopod eye has none of these problems since the nerves exit out the back of the retina.

Also the back of the retina needs a large blood flow so there are good reasons camera eyes are wired that way.

No, there isn't. You can get sufficient blood flow without passing nerves in front of the retina. Cephalopods already do it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It didn't. If you've got time for this kind of round-and-round you'll have to find someone else.

It did. It seems that you refuse to answer simple questions.

 

[Smidlee]

Is that true for all life? Nope.

Box jellyfish have eyes, but no optic nerve and no visual cortex to speak of.

One of a box jellyfish’s multiple sets of eyes allows it to see the world above the water so it can navigate, a study indicates. | LiveScience

Basal chordates like the lancet don't have anything close to our visual cortex, yet they have functioning eyes.

Functional camera eyes? Even a blind man can detect light.

Non-sequitur.



Having light shine through nerve cells before hitting our photoreceptors is a big reduction in both light collection and resolution. There is no rescuing that. Also, the cephalopod eye has none of these problems since the nerves exit out the back of the retina.



No, there isn't. You can get sufficient blood flow without passing nerves in front of the retina. Cephalopods already do it.

Again we are talking about camera eyes not just detecting patterns and light.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So how did the simple life evolve into more complex multi celled life that has DNA and can reproduce with say an embryo. There would be thousands of unique and complex things that had to happen

Sure Consider this though. Here's the general timeline:

3.6 bya (billion years ago) : oldest evidence of life
1 bya: multi-cellular life
600 mya: simple animals
550 mya: animals with a front and back
500 mya: fish
470 mya: land plants
400 mya: insects
360 mya :reptiles
200 mya: mammals

So, it took 2.6 billion years to get from simple life to multi-cellular life. The cells had a history of 2.6 billion years of evolution before they came together to form more complex lifeforms.
That's a bloody long time.

and much of it would have depended on 2 or even many parts being present at the same time and all interlocking and fitting together like a jig saw puzzle.

No. We've been over this. Parts converge and they adopt new functions.
Also, systems don't have to be perfect or efficient or whatever from the start. Having a bad eye is still better then being blind, conceptually speaking.

The odds are highly stacked against it happening

There are more bacteria in your stomach then the entire amount of humans that have ever lived.

Consider single celled organisms around the world. Reproducing every hour or so. During 2.6 billion years.

Mutations are mostly deletions and rarely beneficial.

The process doesn't need anything else. We are talking about millions, billions perhaps trillions of reproduction events per hour during 2.6 billion years. These numbers get so huge so fast, it's hard to argue against it with probabilities. Rather, it seems inevitable

Gene are copied from what is already existing. Any variations are from what is already there.

What's there are molecules that we conceptually refer to as A, C, T and G.
Simplisticly put, the difference between you and a banana is the order of those letters.

Let's try an analogy of software. Remember, it's just an analogy - don't take it where it's not supposed to be taken.

Both MS Word and the game Call Of Duty are written in code. This code gets translated so that the CPU can understand it. This language is binary: 10101000111 etc.

Let's take that binary string and draw an analogy to CTAATTGTC.
Those are the "genotype".

The DNA string manifests as a cat (the "fenotype").
The binary string manifests as Word.

Both word and call of duty have a genotype consisting of 1s and 0s.
Both you and some type of rodent have a genotype consisting of Cs, Ts, Gs and As.

I could build a genetic algoritm program that starts reproducing and mutating the binary string of word and evolve it into the string of call of duty. Using exactly the principles of evolution: random mutation + selection.

Now, was the "information" of call of duty already present in word?
The answer is no. It's just a series of ones and zeros and how it manifests is only a matter of the order in which those ones and zeros are fed into the CPU.

Life is not different. Your DNA is made of the exact same stuff as the DNA of a cat. There's nothing in your DNA that can't be found in the DNA of a cat. The only difference is the arrangement. And what does mutation do? It rearranges.

See?

It may change things that are existing like color or size or give hair and lack of something but it cannot create new info that will make something completely new that require new genetic info that wasn't there in the first place.

As I've just explained, this is wrong. There's no such thing as "new genetic info". There's just the molecule we call DNA and how it is arranged. Mutations gradually rearrange that molecule.

I'm not sure about that do you have a link. I know they try to explain it but I dont think they have proved it. Experiments with the fruit flies hasn't produced any different and new features like giving the fly a tail or grass hopper antennas. It has only changed the existing features and in fact over time most of the flies have become less healthy and functional. They have only created poorer versions on the whole but with the same features.

I fear that what you ask for takes far to long to observe in a human lifetime.
But I already explained the mechanism by which these features evolve. By reassigning function to various parts that start working together.

The wing didn't start to evolve to fly. It knew lots of different functions. Even today we can see that in extant species that have wings but don't fly. They use it for other purposes. Some for warmth, some for balance, some for simple gliding.
Life is more creative that you seem to realise.

Yes but if you truly go into what is involved in a creature taking on a new feature it hasnt got its not so simple as people make out

I never said it's simple. But you're thinking about it in the wrong way. When you think about evolving a wing for flight, you probably start in your head with a creature that has NO wing, perhabs not even limbs.

It's a gradual process and each consecutive step, each generation, this small change must benefit in some way. Go back to when flight didn't evolve yet and you'll probably see creatures with wing-like limbs. And those limbs will be an important part of that creature. It will have its role, its function, its purpose, its benefit. And none of it would by flight.

But thats like saying there was a fluke that the insect and the flower came at the same time by random chance.

Natural Selection is not random.
The better the flower gets at attracting insects, the more it gets to reproduce.
The better an insect gets at harvesting a particular flower, the more it prospers (and the more it outcompetes other insects).

Before you know it, both depend on eachother.

Well it could be thats the way it needs to be for us humans.

It "could" also be that it is a remnant of when Lord Xenu the intergalactic emperor created us this way so we could be better at flying his spaceships. But "coulds" aren't going to get us anywhere.

Our eyes are very unique

Errrr... no.

and despite the comparison to a squid we can see and use our eyes a lot better.

lol, what? No. Squids have far better vision then us. And don't get me started on the totally awesome zooming function certain predators have and we don't.

It could also have to do with our brains as we also have a greater depths of perception.

This does not make any sense. If anything, our brain is being forced to waste energy on correcting the faulty hardware of our eyes by creating the illusion that the blind spot isn't there.

Who knows why it is this way

Biology knows.
This is how our eyes originated long ago. The wiring happened to be in front of the cells. Which was better then no eyes at all. So we got stuck with it. Other types of eye don't have this problem. Sight evolved independedly multiple times, you know.

But at the end of the day our eyes work perfectly well just how they should be for us

My optician disagrees.

But they are still highly complex and amazing and I just cant see how they could evolve from nothing more or less

Google "evolution of the eye".

I'm going to bed now. You're just repeating the same mistakes anyway.

 

[Smidlee]

Google "evolution of the eye".

Yes, stevev please Google "evolution of the eye" and see if there are any mention of the optical nerve, complex digital code and the visual cortex. It's just the eyeball without mention how did the eyeball know if it develop into a camera eye it would result in our brain building visual images. Remember the sun doesn't give off light as we know it but electromagnetic waves. Our brain ability to create images at great speeds is a very complex process that even our best supercomputers can't do. Our eyes detects electromagnetic waves but it's our brain which create the images we see.

 

[Loudmouth]

Functional camera eyes?

It doesn't need to be a camera eye in order to be a functioning eye.

Again we are talking about camera eyes not just detecting patterns and light.

We are talking about the evolution of eyes. You claim that all of the features in the camera eye had to be there all at once. Simpler eyes with fewer features proves you wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, stevev please Google "evolution of the eye" and see if there are any mention of the optical nerve, complex digital code and the visual cortex.

None of which are needed for functional eyes.