Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[Kenisaw]

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Even a lot of the websites run by your creationist masters don't try to argue that thermodynamics is an issue for abiogenesis or the theory of evolution any more. But then that's probably why you have a 1986 copyrighted quote at your disposal...

[H.sapiens]

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[quote=""IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL"
©1986 by Paul D. Ackerman"]...the the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all real processes in the physical universe—when isolated and left to themselves—go irreversibly downhill toward increasing disorder and chaos.

Evolution only works in the imaginations of evolutionist scholars like George Wald and William R. Bennett. In the real world, any system posited to produce ordered and meaningful outcomes will inevitably be subject to the processes of decay and disordering known to scientists as the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
http://www.creationism.org/books/ackerm ... Chap13.htm

[/quote]The current view is that both time and thermodynamics favor both abiogenesis and evolution, try again.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You're twisting words and using another third party's comments. The Miller experiment did lend support to the idea that life could have arisen from nonliving material ... because it did produce amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. I'm not claiming that Miller didn't do the experiment to lend support to this idea, I'm claiming (based on the actual paper), that he was not trying to create life in that particular experiment, which is your contention. He was testing the hypothesis that complex organic molecules could be produced from a simple 4-component reducing atmosphere (thought at the time to represent the early Earth's atmosphere), along with electrical input and thermal cycling.

"Complex organic molecules" is pretty much LIFE, bruh. Every time it appears you are being disingenuous about what the experiment entails, I will simply paste an excerpt of a credible website which states otherwise...

"Stanley Miller reported that he had conducted an experiment which replicated the primeval conditions on Earth and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3161

"...and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

In other words: Life from nonlife.

That's it ... that was the goal of the experiment. At no point does Miller claim or even discuss in this incredibly short paper the creation of life as a result of the experiment.

Even your third party quote above just states that the experiment, along with other information lends support to the idea that life could have arisen from nonliving materials. I maintain that the experiment itself had no intention to create life as its goal ... only to test the hypothesis (as stated in the paper) that complex organic molecules could be created in such an experiment, and it succeeded in doing that.

"In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance."

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/03 ... iment.html

I've tried to get you to answer in previous posts when you think consciousness appeared in the animal kingdom, but can't get an answer. I assume you would agree that no plants have consciousness, and this property is restricted to members of the animal kingdom. And you'd also agree that bacteria and sponges and many "lower" animals do not have consciousness.

Kinda hard to disagree with that one.

But at what point do you believe consciousness first appeared (or, if you like, what animal first displayed this feature)?

I don't know.

Are dogs conscious?

Yup.

What about fish

Yup.

, or worms?

To some degree, maybe.

My point with the word "progressive" is that the transition between animals without consciousness and those with consciousness was not a sudden event (like a "creation"), and this is what the scientific evidence shows.

Speculation.

What animal do you think was the first to display consciousness? You don't seem to be able to answer that question.

I am less concerned about when life forms achieved consciousness, and more concerned about where consciousness originated from in the first place.

I do believe life arose from nonliving materials myself, but we can't yet show a detailed mechanism for how it happened.

My point exactly.

Invoking "god of the gaps" to claim life was created by a deity simply because science has yet to find the answer is more akin to voodoo thinking than considering that some sort of abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. event is feasible and science just hasn't yet solved the problem.

Nice try. But the argument isn't "I don't know how it happened, therefore, God did it".

The argument is "It is impossible for consciousness (non-physical), to have been produced by physical entities (brains, etc)."

The original Miller experiment, and the many similar experiments carried out since 1952, do lend support to an abiogenesis possibility

Nonsense. What do you mean "lend support"? Either you can go in a lab and produce life from nonliving material, or you can't. There is no middle ground.

, but you seem to reject that completely for no reason other than that you simply don't believe it could have happened.

I don't see evidence that it happened, or could happen.

It may well turn out not to be the correct answer, but it also can't be ruled out at this point ... it is still an open science problem.

There is overwhelming evidence against it.

Really? This is just another opinion based on ignoring mountains of evidence supporting macroevolution, a valid theory which has yet to be falsified.

If there is evidence that a reptile evolved into a bird, I haven't seen it yet.

You should grab a copy of The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, or just read some Wikipedia articles, to get some facts on the subject. Do you not believe that amphibians evolved from fish, and that reptiles evolved from amphibians?

I believe that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish.

Or do you draw the line at humans evolving from a common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos because you don't believe that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor (despite the extensive fossil and genetic evidence supporting this conclusion), because humans are "special"?

Evidence...lack thereof...

The evidence in support of evolution (micro and macro) is overwhelming. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to believe it doesn't make it a false theory.

No one is sticking their head in the sand. Theists, just like naturalists, have the right to DEMAND for convincing evidence for naturalistic claims. We don't believe we are getting any such evidence, so we refuse to believe.

And I am sure it is the other way around when it comes to theists and our supernatural/miracle claims, that you apparently refuse to believe based on what you perceive to be inadequate evidence.

I would think that you'd appreciate such a concept.

An abiogenesis process for the origin of life on this planet is still an open research problem, and as such it cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

It can, in my eyes.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If populations of animals change over time, please point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point.

So basically, what you are saying is; given enough time, a snake can evolve into a pig? If you say no, then I will challenge you to point to the mechanism that is in place that stops this kind of change at some point on the evolutionary scale.

And whatever answer you give, I will use that same answer to answer your question in the above quote.

If you cannot, then small changes will become large changes.

Right, so in that case...given enough time, a snake will evolve into a pig.

Micro will become macro. If I continue to make small steps, I will eventually walk a mile.

Will you begin to evolve wings as you walk?

That is, unless there is something there to stop my continual small steps from reaching a mile in distance.

You can speculate all you want. I am going by what thousands of years of observation has told us, which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

If you want to believe that long ago, when you were conveniently not here to witness it, that the animals of yesterday was able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do....and that the animals of tomorrow will begin to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do...then you are entitled to believe it.

However, that isn't science. That is religion, because you are relying on the unseen.

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

It is the same mechanism which allows my next door neighbors (figuratively) dogs to have dog offspring. So you tell me what mechanism will ALLOW my next door neighbors dogs to produce non dogs?

[For_The_Kingdom]

The second law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, entropy can only increase over time. The Earth is not an isolated system ... it receives energy from an external source (the sun).

Yeah but the problem with that is; the universe as a whole is a CLOSED system. There is nothing outside it replenishing its energy and it will ultimately lose all of its energy as the energy is winding down even now as we speak.

So before you can even get to all of this talk about evolution, you have to have a system in place that will allow it to occur. So this pushes the question of origins back one step further, and it is a concept that the naturalists have problems addressing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 481 by For_The_Kingdom]

"Stanley Miller reported that he had conducted an experiment which replicated the primeval conditions on Earth and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

Dude, your own quote does NOT say the purpose of the experiment was to (re)create life. It says as you quoted, that it replicated (or sought to) the primeval conditions on Earth (as they were thought to be at the time) and produced the chemicals.
An amino acid is not life.
Also, why should I or anyone else go by what your website says, when the previous poster indicated he was quoting from Miller's actual paper? The page you link to FtK does NOT give us any links or citations.

Also, the website clearly betrays its lack of understanding of science in general when it says, on their FAQ
"Theory
Is evolution a fact or a theory [-]
It is a theory since so much data does not fit."
However, given that their Board of Directors lists scientists...the next most likely explanation is that they are being wilfully disingenuous. What I do see on their Board page, or rather do not see, is any mention of work done by their board members to advance Intelligent Design/Creationism in the scientific field. This reminds me of when Ken Ham debated Bill Nye in 2014 - during the debate, Ham attempted to give legitimacy to creationism by pointing to famous scientists who were creationists such as Dr. Damadian (inventor of the MRI), but tellingly enough none of them had actually published or conducted work to investigate creationism scientifically.

"...and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin".

In other words: Life from nonlife.

Are the chemicals necessary for life the same as life itself?

"In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance."

Here's a tip. If you're going to try to convince us what two people's goals were in doing a certain thing a few decades ago...try quoting from them directly.

You may still be correct, but at least you're not relying on third party hearsay. It strengthens your case if you give us direct quotes.

Also, the piltdownsuperman site has a Statement of Faith. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my stance on sites with those. If you'd like, I can explain here, or more than likely, I will later on provide a link to an explanation in the Member Notes section (once Otseng grants me access that is).

I am less concerned about when life forms achieved consciousness, and more concerned about where consciousness originated from in the first place.

When and where would be related, don't you think? Since, in my mind, the evidence for the arrival of consciousness in a time period far far earlier than six to ten thousand years ago far outweighs whatever evidence has been offered (if any) in favour of a 6-10,000 year time frame, then this means your standard creationism claim is completely without merit.

My point exactly.

This restricts you as well. If you are honest here, and really do truthfully agree with DrNoGods that we cannot show a detailed mechanism for how it [life from non-life] happened., then this means your own claims of creation are also without merit.
They do not get a pass simply because today, we cannot map the formation of consciousness just yet.
What can you show us to actually support the contention that "God did it" (or words to that effect) or some other phrase you'd personally care to give us? What can you offer us without having to denigrate evolution first?

Nice try. But the argument isn't "I don't know how it happened, therefore, God did it".

The argument is "It is impossible for consciousness (non-physical), to have been produced by physical entities (brains, etc)."

...therefore, God did it. That's typically how your arguments can be summed up as. You also have never given us an example of a consciousness without a physical shell of some sort (probably because, in my opinion, such a thing cannot exist). You have never supported the above contention beyond saying something along the lines of scientists cannot produce consciousness, or cannot explain consciousness, therefore physical entities are simply incapable of making it.
Your logic ignores the steady progression of science. Your logic, if I applied it, would mean that somebody in the year 1902 would say that since we can't build functional airplanes, therefore they can't be built.

Nonsense. What do you mean "lend support"? Either you can go in a lab and produce life from nonliving material, or you can't. There is no middle ground.

So where is your experiment to create life, or to show life can be created? This also shows your fundamental lack of understanding just how science is conducted. Do you think that because Miller and Urey "got it wrong" in their experiment that therefore their entire hypothesis (as you claimed it to be) is wrong? What if the problem was simply that they didn't have the right conditions in their experiment, such as by being off by a degree in temperature?

I don't see evidence that it happened, or could happen.

Which is what I say about creationism. I don't see evidence that it happened, or could happen at all. However, unlike yourself, when it comes to rebutting creationism, I don't have to somehow ignore a hundred and fifty years of scientific research that validates it from tens of thousands of scientists working in many fields and disciplines.

There is overwhelming evidence against it.

By it precisely, do you mean the Miller-Urey experiment, or the entire notion of life from non life? If the former, as I said up above, they probably just got the conditions wrong. If the latter...where are the experiments against it? You either go into a lab and create life, or you don't. There is no middle ground.

If there is evidence that a reptile evolved into a bird, I haven't seen it yet.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone in the past has shown you just that, but you didn't have a rebuttal to it.

I believe that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish.

Wow. So scientific!

Evidence...lack thereof...

What kind of evidence do you think would suffice?

No one is sticking their head in the sand. Theists, just like naturalists, have the right to DEMAND for convincing evidence for naturalistic claims. We don't believe we are getting any such evidence, so we refuse to believe.

And I am sure it is the other way around when it comes to theists and our supernatural/miracle claims, that you apparently refuse to believe based on what you perceive to be inadequate evidence.

I would think that you'd appreciate such a concept.

Isn't the supernatural defined (at least in part) as being beyond empirical testing, beyond the concept of evidence?

It can, in my eyes.

And your research for this is...?

UPDATE
For your consideration FtK, here is a link to my Member's Notes page, where I explain my thoughts and my policy regarding sites that have Statements of Faith.
viewtopic.php?p=870846#870846

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 482 by For_The_Kingdom]

So basically, what you are saying is; given enough time, a snake can evolve into a pig?

I think Clownboat would say no. I think Clownboat would say "given enough time, provided the snakes survive, and provided environmental conditions changed enough that for the snakes to continue to survive, they would have to change, they would change into something (not necessarily a pig)".

Right, so in that case...given enough time, a snake will evolve into a pig.

Why a snake into a pig? Is your argument deadset on arguing that evolutionists 'predict' that snakes will evolve into pigs and pigs only?

Will you begin to evolve wings as you walk?

If a species over many successive generations builds up changes in its physical structure, what is the mechanism that prevents that species from say...growing fur?

You can speculate all you want. I am going by what thousands of years of observation has told us, which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

While completely ignoring the fossil record and the entire field of genetics. Got'cha.

If you want to believe that long ago, when you were conveniently not here to witness it, that the animals of yesterday was able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do

If you want to believe that long ago, when you were conveniently not here to witness it, that a spirit being of some sort whose existence you have never been able to satisfactorily prove, was able to conjure up animals in their modern day forms...
that isn't science. That is religion, because you are relying on the unseen.

It is the same mechanism which allows my next door neighbors (figuratively) dogs to have dog offspring.

I notice you don't actually name or explain what this mechanism actually is...

So you tell me what mechanism will ALLOW my next door neighbors dogs to produce non dogs?

Time, changes in the environment, and luck. Of course, I can guess that you're thinking in the short term, as in you're thinking of the immediate offspring (the literal next generation).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 483 by For_The_Kingdom]

Yeah but the problem with that is; the universe as a whole is a CLOSED system.

Doesn't matter. With regards to the question of life on Earth, the only thing that matters with regard to it and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is...is there anything supplying energy/heat to the Earth? The answer to that is yes...the Sun.

Even if we consider the entirety of the universe and that it's own energy is not being replenished...so what? How does that disprove the notion of abiogenesis on Earth? You do realize the universe is a big place, I hope? With many billions of stars and galaxies? It'll be a LONG time before we have to worry about running out of energy from stellar neighbours to fuel the formation of life on Earth.

So before you can even get to all of this talk about evolution, you have to have a system in place that will allow it to occur.

Which can be anything, even a Godly creation.

So this pushes the question of origins back one step further, and it is a concept that the naturalists have problems addressing.

Notice also that you too have the same problem of origins. Your go to tactic is to try to disprove evolution and/or abiogenesis, as if that somehow proves creationism true.

[benchwarmer]

If populations of animals change over time, please point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point.

So basically, what you are saying is; given enough time, a snake can evolve into a pig? If you say no, then I will challenge you to point to the mechanism that is in place that stops this kind of change at some point on the evolutionary scale.

Wow, a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary biology with a side of strawman.

What we call a snake today can never evolve into what we call a pig today. It may evolve into something that is similar to a pig of today, but it will still be a snake.

This has been explained over and over and over .... Yet the same strawman is trotted out like its some sort of revelation or debate stopper.

If you really want to 'stop us in our tracks' with this amazing mischaracterization of evolution, please provide us a link to a scientific paper that states snakes will evolve into pigs or whatever other odd example you've given. Until then, all we see is continual misunderstanding or outright willful ignorance.

If a baby is born with a vestigial tail, do you call the baby a human or something else? I mean, it sure looks like something else I guess it can't be human. Maybe we should flip through Genesis and see if we can find out what it is on the Arks manifest.

Now would be a great time to SMH and LOL. We're all doing it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Dude, your own quote does NOT say the purpose of the experiment was to (re)create life. It says as you quoted, that it replicated (or sought to) the primeval conditions on Earth (as they were thought to be at the time) and produced the chemicals.
An amino acid is not life.
Also, why should I or anyone else go by what your website says, when the previous poster indicated he was quoting from Miller's actual paper? The page you link to FtK does NOT give us any links or citations.

In experiments, Miller-Urey experiment, or "Urey-Miller experiment", refers to the 1952 synthesis, by American bio-chemist (chnops-chemist) Stanley Miller, under the guidance of planetary chemist Harold Urey, of organic compounds (specifically the amino acids: glycine, α-alanine, β-alanine, and possibly aspartic acid and α-amino-n­-butyric acid) from inorganic chemicals (specifically: methane CH4, ammonia NH3, water H20, and hydrogen H2) using an electrical discharge (see: lightning origin of life theory); thereby giving seeming experimental justification to the hypothesis of abiogenesis. [1]

http://www.eoht.info/page/Miller-Urey+experiment

Have you guys had enough? Because I can keep going...link by link...article by article...quote by quote.

Or you can just stop being disingenuous and call the experiment what it has been documented over the past 60 years as...an attempt to produce life from nonliving material.

Are the chemicals necessary for life the same as life itself?

In order to have life, don't you have to have the chemicals necessary for life first? SMH.

"We don't have life, but we sure have those chemicals, though". Laughable.

Here's a tip. If you're going to try to convince us what two people's goals were in doing a certain thing a few decades ago...try quoting from them directly.

Nonsense. It is common knowledge as to what the experiment was set out to accomplish and what the results were.

You may still be correct, but at least you're not relying on third party hearsay. It strengthens your case if you give us direct quotes.

Man, please.

When and where would be related, don't you think? Since, in my mind, the evidence for the arrival of consciousness in a time period far far earlier than six to ten thousand years ago far outweighs whatever evidence has been offered (if any) in favour of a 6-10,000 year time frame, then this means your standard creationism claim is completely without merit.

Not all creationists are that of young earth. You do understand that, right?

This restricts you as well. If you are honest here, and really do truthfully agree with DrNoGods that we cannot show a detailed mechanism for how it [life from non-life] happened., then this means your own claims of creation are also without merit.

Non sequitur.

They do not get a pass simply because today, we cannot map the formation of consciousness just yet.

And naturalism doesn't get a pass either, nor does it win by default.

What can you show us to actually support the contention that "God did it" (or words to that effect) or some other phrase you'd personally care to give us? What can you offer us without having to denigrate evolution first?

There is a chicken and egg problem with mind/body naturalism which cannot be reconciled logically, or scientifically.

...therefore, God did it. That's typically how your arguments can be summed up as.

Well, if there are only two options and one is negated, then the other one wins by default. So, if nature didn't do it, then God is the only game left in town.

You also have never given us an example of a consciousness without a physical shell of some sort (probably because, in my opinion, such a thing cannot exist).

Oh, well in the case, then I've never been given an example of a reptile-bird kind of transformation in nature. So if we are basing our case entirely on what we can/can't get examples of, then its not looking good for your side of things either.

And I can't give you an "example" of consciousness without a physical shell...not because I can't or because the concept is absurd, but because the concept is beyond the scope of science, as it is a miracle.

All I can do is give sound/valid reasons as to why it can't happen according to the laws of nature, which is what I've done.

You, on the other hand, cannot use the "it is beyond the scope of science" contention, because that would shatter your naturalistic worldview. Therefore, since the answer cannot/does not go beyond the scope of science, I expect you to scientifically explain the phenomena (origin of consciousness).

But, you can't, can you?

You have never supported the above contention beyond saying something along the lines of scientists cannot produce consciousness, or cannot explain consciousness, therefore physical entities are simply incapable of making it.

Throughout my tenure on this great forum, I've explained/presented my case on more than one occasion. You should know that, Stan.

Your logic ignores the steady progression of science. Your logic, if I applied it, would mean that somebody in the year 1902 would say that since we can't build functional airplanes, therefore they can't be built.

If only you are able to prove me wrong just like the guy in 1902 would have been proven wrong.

So where is your experiment to create life, or to show life can be created?

Me and a woman (who shall remained unnamed) conducted an experiment. Without getting into details, in 9 months the experiment was completed and we successfully created life. It has been just over 7 years since that experiment was successfully completed (June 8th, 2010).

That was my personal experiment.

This also shows your fundamental lack of understanding just how science is conducted. Do you think that because Miller and Urey "got it wrong" in their experiment that therefore their entire hypothesis (as you claimed it to be) is wrong? What if the problem was simply that they didn't have the right conditions in their experiment, such as by being off by a degree in temperature?

LOL. SMH.

Which is what I say about creationism. I don't see evidence that it happened, or could happen at all.

And why can't it happen?

However, unlike yourself, when it comes to rebutting creationism, I don't have to somehow ignore a hundred and fifty years of scientific research that validates it from tens of thousands of scientists working in many fields and disciplines.

I don't ignore it, either.

By it precisely, do you mean the Miller-Urey experiment, or the entire notion of life from non life?

Life from nonlife.

If the former, as I said up above, they probably just got the conditions wrong.

Probably is an understatement.

If the latter...where are the experiments against it?

Consciousness isn't something you can get by mixing or stirring ingredients in a test tube and getting results.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone in the past has shown you just that, but you didn't have a rebuttal to it.

Let me guess, archaeopteryx, right?

Wow. So scientific!

Sure is..that is the observation part of science.

What kind of evidence do you think would suffice?

If I told you, I will be told something along the lines of "but thats not how nature works". So, why bother.

Isn't the supernatural defined (at least in part) as being beyond empirical testing, beyond the concept of evidence?

Yeah, scientific evidence.

And your research for this is...?

UPDATE
For your consideration FtK, here is a link to my Member's Notes page, where I explain my thoughts and my policy regarding sites that have Statements of Faith.
viewtopic.php?p=870846#870846

Iono what that is..