Where did the first cell come from?

[juvenissun]

What do you think it is they cannot make? They can make DNA and RNA. It is probably a lot simpler to use bits readily available from bacteria. The difficulty would be to synthesise very large molecules in a cell like ribosomes which they can clearly do. It isn't like there is some vital spark of life in organic molecules that you cannot make from inorganic, that was overturned in 1828 when Wöhler synthesed urea "without thereby needing to have kidneys, or anyhow, an animal, be it human or dog".

We are talking about the origin of cell, not the manufacturing of cells. We do not know how was a cell made. So we can not repeat the same process.

 

[NGC 6712]

That is new. Where is it?

Somewhere around 0.95 AU - though that is being very restrictive, it probably could be closer than that.

 

[juvenissun]

Somewhere around 0.95 AU - though that is being very restrictive, it probably could be closer than that.

If so, is that 0.05 AU small enough to change everything? Why do you say this kind of knowledge is lie?

------

Side point: what would that 0.05 AU different save the earth from becoming another Venus? You must know something I don't.

 

[Assyrian]

Somewhere around 0.95 AU - though that is being very restrictive, it probably could be closer than that.

Isn't this distance going to vary over time depending on the heat of the sun and the composition of the earth's atmosphere?
1.0 AU wasn't goldilocks when it produce 'snowball earth' 650 million years ago. That porridge was too cold.

 

[Assyrian]

We are talking about the origin of cell, not the manufacturing of cells. We do not know how was a cell made. So we can not repeat the same process.

You did ask if they were still trying to make a cell

I think what the manufacture of artificial cells does is dispel the last of the mystical vitalism that thinks only cells can give birth to cells and shows that living cells are mechanical.

You are right we will probably never know the process the first cell was made by. It is lost too far back in the mists of time. But that means not knowing isn't an argument against abiogenesis, the only argument is that it couldn't have happened, which is answered more and more by showing different ways it could.

 

[juvenissun]

You did ask if they were still trying to make a cell

I think what the manufacture of artificial cells does is dispel the last of the mystical vitalism that thinks only cells can give birth to cells and shows that living cells are mechanical.

You are right we will probably never know the process the first cell was made by. It is lost too far back in the mists of time. But that means not knowing isn't an argument against abiogenesis, the only argument is that it couldn't have happened, which is answered more and more by showing different ways it could.

I guess that from a simplistic point of view, "we do not know" does not mean it is or is not, neither mean it can or can not.

But there are views from other angles.

 

[mathetes123]

You did ask if they were still trying to make a cell

I think what the manufacture of artificial cells does is dispel the last of the mystical vitalism that thinks only cells can give birth to cells and shows that living cells are mechanical.

You are right we will probably never know the process the first cell was made by. It is lost too far back in the mists of time. But that means not knowing isn't an argument against abiogenesis, the only argument is that it couldn't have happened, which is answered more and more by showing different ways it could.

Everything from nothing is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The only way this law could be violated is by the One who put the law in place.

 

[Assyrian]

Everything from nothing? We are talking simple chemical reactions with smaller molecules reacting together to form longer molecules. That doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics

 

[Calminian]

You did ask if they were still trying to make a cell

I think what the manufacture of artificial cells does is dispel the last of the mystical vitalism that thinks only cells can give birth to cells and shows that living cells are mechanical.

You are right we will probably never know the process the first cell was made by. It is lost too far back in the mists of time. But that means not knowing isn't an argument against abiogenesis, the only argument is that it couldn't have happened, which is answered more and more by showing different ways it could.

We can't make cells. We just can't. Neither can we even make vitamins. Synthetic vitamins have been proven to lack the light properties of live source vitamins. Quantum physicists have shown this to be the case like Fritz Albert Popp. We're just beginning to understand how energy and matter work together.

And even if we could design a cell, what would this prove? Design? Or random chance?

Come on guys. Think through what you're saying.

 

[Smidlee]

We are talking about the origin of cell, not the manufacturing of cells. We do not know how was a cell made. So we can not repeat the same process.

Trying to build a cell from scratch is like trying to build a house out of ice cream in heat of the summer. The cell is constantly falling apart and need to be repaired by nano-machines which falls apart and need replacements. The cell will eventually lose it's mad race with time. In abiogenesis and evolution fairy tale time is suppose to be the hero.

 

[Assyrian]

We can't make cells. We just can't. Neither can we even make vitamins. Synthetic vitamins have been proven to lack the light properties of live source vitamins. Quantum physicists have shown this to be the case like Fritz Albert Popp. We're just beginning to understand how energy and matter work together.

Some biological processes operate on a quantum level, but chemistry is the same. Be careful, there is genuine research being done on biophotonics but nothing compared to the sheer volume of quackery from people using the words like quantum to sell you their health products.

And even if we could design a cell, what would this prove? Design? Or random chance?

Come on guys. Think through what you're saying.

You really need to think through this 'design' argument. We study the formation of snowflakes and icicles in labs to test how they form in nature. We study how materials stress and fracture under different strains and pressures, how chemicals combine under different conditions, how cells respond to drugs, how light is split into spectrum. Are you seriously claiming these experiments show how each snowflake needs to be designed or that a designer carves each stress fracture? If only Newton understood his experiment showed a designer paints each rainbow.

 

[Smidlee]

dp.

 

[Smidlee]

You really need to think through this 'design' argument. We study the formation of snowflakes and icicles in labs to test how they form in nature.....seriously claiming these experiments show how each snowflake needs to be designed or that a designer carves each stress fracture?

Oh NOOOOOOOO, not the lame snowflake argument. What we learn when studying snowflakes is it's completely random. (snowflakes are random just like watching static on TV) Now if we happen to find a big pile of snow with every single snowflake looks exactly the same it would point to intelligent designed because randomness has been removed.

 

[Assyrian]

Oh NOOOOOOOO, not the lame snowflake argument. What we learn when studying snowflakes is it's completely random.

So the presence of a scientist carrying out the experiment in a lab doesn't prove the process needs a designer? Glad we cleared that up.

Now if we happen to find a big pile of snow with every single snowflake looks exactly the same it would point to intelligent designed because randomness has been removed.

Ice crystals are a bit unusual due to the shape of the molecule. Most substances when you crystalise them produce very similar crystals with identical crystal structure. Good experiments should produce the same results. Test the melting point of sodium thiosulphate and it is 48.3 °C. Test it again, 48.3 °C and again, and again. It is competely regular. Does that mean when sodium thiosulphate melts it needs a designer?

 

[Smidlee]

So the presence of a scientist carrying out the experiment in a lab doesn't prove the process needs a designer? Glad we cleared that up.

Ice crystals are a bit unusual due to the shape of the molecule. Most substances when you crystalise them produce very similar crystals with identical crystal structure. Good experiments should produce the same results. Test the melting point of sodium thiosulphate and it is 48.3 °C. Test it again, 48.3 °C and again, and again. It is competely regular. Does that mean when sodium thiosulphate melts it needs a designer?

I don't think anyone would argue that something "not designed" needs a designer no more than to watch static on TV you needs a TV station.

I do think the laws of physics themselves are designed instead of putting my faith in multi-universes.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think anyone would argue that something "not designed" needs a designer no more than to watch static on TV you needs a TV station.

So if you think something is designed then the experimenter shows there was a designer, but if you think it isn't designed the experimenter doesn't show a designer?

I do think the laws of physics themselves are designed instead of putting my faith in multi-universes.

I wouldn't argue with you there. I wouldn't have a problem if they actually showed the multiverse existed, God is big enough. But the whole multiverse thing seems pretty implausible.

 

[Elias526]

I do think the laws of physics themselves are designed instead of putting my faith in multi-universes.

The reason a pyramid is different from a skyscraper has a lot to do with the different materials used. Science tells us that the elements or basic building materials are made in a star. So we have universal laws, also we have elements that do have limits in how they can be assembled.

 

[Elias526]

But the whole multiverse thing seems pretty implausible.

It is clearly science fiction at this point. I just wonder why they feel a need to call the multiverse theory science.

 

[juvenissun]

Trying to build a cell from scratch is like trying to build a house out of ice cream in heat of the summer. The cell is constantly falling apart and need to be repaired by nano-machines which falls apart and need replacements. The cell will eventually lose it's mad race with time. In abiogenesis and evolution fairy tale time is suppose to be the hero.

OK, I accept your comment as the answer to this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

So the presence of a scientist carrying out the experiment in a lab doesn't prove the process needs a designer? Glad we cleared that up.

Ice crystals are a bit unusual due to the shape of the molecule. Most substances when you crystalise them produce very similar crystals with identical crystal structure. Good experiments should produce the same results. Test the melting point of sodium thiosulphate and it is 48.3 °C. Test it again, 48.3 °C and again, and again. It is competely regular. Does that mean when sodium thiosulphate melts it needs a designer?

I think so, when we start to ask: why 48.3°C ?