Abiogenesis

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Abiogenesis

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Abiogenesis

Post #2

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

You understand the etymology of the word, or the idea of "life from non-life" however you've been misled on the process.

Strictly speaking "a rock can, over time, produce cells" is not a valid hypothesis for the development of life.

To better understand why that is, we're going to have to be very precise with our wording.

Under the context of discussing early "biological systems," I will properly distinguish these systems from "cells". Cells have a variety of organelles and components. When we think of cells, we think of modern cells, with specific chemical components.

Early biological systems, or proto-cells, would not, in any way, resemble modern cells. The development of cellular biology is fraught with all kinds of developments and occurrences over a long period of time. Trying to correlate them with the idea of rocks 'producing' cells is what creates so much misinformation. You'll find that creationists tend to use these outlandish claims. However, I hope that my explanation is cutting more to the heart of the issue, and demonstrating how scientific inquiry isn't so shallow.

Now, onto the idea of 'rocks' producing these 'proto-cells'. In reality, such a thing is impossible. The chemical reactions in rocks are insufficient for jump-starting complex self-assembly. In reality, the process would function more in the manner I describe below:

1. Organic molecules self-assemble using known chemical processes.

2. These organic molecules can, in environments with the appropriate amount of heat and viscosity, be contained in vesicles that create isolated environments for chemical reactions to occur.

3. After repeated trial and error, in which vesicles break apart or otherwise take in and polymerize chemicals using the known chemical processes, would eventually find a single iteration capable of utilizing an enzyme that allows the vesicle to 'build' more of itself, assisting self-assembly.

4. Convection currents, such as the ones present near geothermal vents, would facilitate continuous environmental stimulus that effectively enforces stages of heating and cooling, which allows the polymerized chemicals to react and behave depending on their configuration and base components (remember, in the RNA world hypothesis, all proto-cellular genetic codes or proto-RNA would be entirely randomized, taken from the environment and attached in whatever way chemistry allows).

5. Enzymes capable of efficient polymerization, polymers that are abundant, and complex temperature-variant environments would allow for different self-assembling molecules to adhere and begin carrying out whatever process they are capable of.

6. Only once, a single proto-cell must form an enzyme capable of either replication, or something along the nature of replication. The instant this occurs, then life has begun, for the simple reason that it will replicate by its very chemical nature. It has no ability not to replicate, and as copies accumulate, they gradually take up the environment, compete for resources, and develop enzymes and polymerized molecules capable of varying function.

To answer your questions:

You understand the term, not the process or the practical application. What you 'understand' is a watered down version that is paraded around by creationists stating that such a thing is impossible. The reality is far more nuanced.

And as far as reproduction by scientists... We know that organic chemicals can self-assemble. We know of environments in which lipids form vesicles. We know enough about chemistry to know that it's possible for proteins to eventually develop. We also are working on cracking down on amino acids, and how proto-RNA would develop into RNA, and then into DNA.

But the true answer is that while we have several of the steps mapped out, adding all of the pieces together isn't so simple. The rate at which a self-assembling chemical system can then form a reproduction-worthy enzyme is so low that we have to conduct testing on a large timescale. Reproduction is ultimately the key: We don't know what the original reproducing proto-cell looks like.

If you want to rely only on what scientists know, then we have most of the pieces of the puzzle. And the practical chemistry is ultimately sound for everything except the reproduction part. But that doesn't mean abiogenesis happened, or that our knowledge of reproduction or chemistry is absolute. Additionally, while we know of specific 'events' involving abiogenesis are possible chemically speaking, we can't force them to happen in sequence in the way necessary to illustrate the process I've described.

To summarize: We know most of the steps, but we've verified these steps individually, in isolation. They are not conclusive, hence why it is called the RNA world hypothesis, and not RNA world theory. Neither you nor I are obligated to accept or even give credibility to the hypothesis, because it is not confirmed by data or facts to the level desired by scientists.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #3

Post by Kenisaw »

I'd like to add to Neatras' excellent post that self-replicating molecules exist. They aren't alive in any sense of the word, but they have the chemical property of replicating themselves (as long as the pieces are available). We know of many such molecules, including one in common yeast. Some of the self-replicating also just happen to be RNA ligases coincidentally. So the jump from non-life to life could have very well gone through one of more of these self-replicators. After all, living things are basically nothing but self-replicating machines.

If a self-replicating molecule got encased in a simple water proof self joining lipid membrane (lipids are still used in living things today for cell walls), then that might have been how the first cells came into being.

We also know that amino acids, sugars, and even alcohols exist in deep space (Murcheson metorite for example), so those important components are not rare or hard to find at all as it turns out.

Since the fossil record clearly demonstrates that life started long ago as very simple creatures, there's no reason to believe myth over rock hard data and evidence...

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Abiogenesis

Post #4

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

liamconnor wrote: 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?
Abiogenesis is the term for the process of life arising from non life. And it should be noticed that life itself is composed of non life. Atoms are non living. Molecules are non living. Strings of molecules formed together in certain ways however can begin to blur the distinction between what is living, and what is non living. A very simple virus for example. Very simple viruses are nothing more than strings of molecules.

Viruses do not excrete. They do not respire. They are non life in every respect except for one. They replicate themselves. And that's all they do. They endlessly replicate themselves. Why? Because they contain within their structure the RNA molecule. RNA is a simple molecule that when in the presence of the requisite material will form nucleic acids that will form new molecules of RNA. When present in a larger molecule, an RNA molecule will attempt to recreate the entire molecule.

So how did RNA form?


Wikipedia
EVOLUTION

In March 2015, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, were reportedly formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[76]March 3, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#cite_ ... 0150303-76


NASA

NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life in Laboratory
NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, cytosine, and thymine, three key components of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces these essential ingredients of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the central structure for uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are all three part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA). RNA and DNA are central to protein synthesis, but also have many other roles.

Building Life's Compounds in Lab
An ice sample is held at approximately -440 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum chamber, where it is irradiated with high energy UV photons from a hydrogen lamp. The bombarding photons break chemical bonds in the ice samples and result in the formation of new compounds, such as uracil.
Credits: NASA/Dominic Hart
"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate conditions in outer space, can make several fundamental building blocks used by living organisms on Earth."

An ice sample is deposited on a cold (approximately –440 degrees Fahrenheit) substrate in a chamber, where it is irradiated with high-energy ultraviolet (UV) photons from a hydrogen lamp. The bombarding photons break chemical bonds in the ices and break down the ice's molecules into fragments that then recombine to form new compounds, such as uracil, cytosine, and thymine.

NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer Solar System for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that have been identified in meteorites, and which are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are structures based on several six-carbon rings that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

The molecule pyrimidine is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

"Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat wimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don't have nitrogen," said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. "We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobases uracil, cytosine, and thymine."

Nucleobases structures
Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the central structure for uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are found in RNA and DNA.
Credits: NASA


Nucleobases cytosine thymine image
The ring-shaped molecule pyrimidine is found in cytosine and thymine.
Credits: NASA
In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from destructive radiation. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).

These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (–440 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in ice mostly consisting of water, but also ammonia, methanol, or methane, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation than it would be if it were in the gas phase in open space. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA/DNA components uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

"We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development," said Christopher Materese, another researcher at NASA Ames who has been working on these experiments.

"Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments suggest that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," says Sandford.

Additional team members who helped perform some of the research are Jason Dworkin, Jamie Elsila, and Stefanie Milam, three NASA scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The research was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) and the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program. The NAI is a virtual, distributed organization of competitively-selected teams that integrates and funds astrobiology research and training programs in concert with the national and international science communities.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-r ... laboratory

Too much information? Sorry, science is not an easy subject. Which is why many people choose to declare that God did it, they believe it, and that settles it.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Abiogenesis

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

liamconnor wrote: But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.
I think it's unreasonable to draw any conclusions concerning what science can ultimately discover based on the fact that some individual scientists might become frustrated.

What would be far more impressive is if these particular scientists would instead provide a compelling case to the scientific community as a whole for why this process should be deemed to be impossible via natural means.

In fact, I suggest the following:

Science has proven to be a very successful method of discovering truths regarding our physical world. The scientific study of abiogenesis is far from complete. Scientists are still proposing new ideas and hypotheses to yet be investigated. Also, our understand of precisely how the information in DNA produces life is in its infancy, and growing at a potentially exponential rate.

The bottom line is this:

As we continue our scientific inquiry into abiogenesis we will inevitably reach an ultimate conclusion. That conclusion will be one of the following two conclusions:

1. We will eventually put together a complete natural picture of how abiogenesis took place.

OR

2. We will eventually have such a complete picture of abiogenesis that we will be able to point to a specific step, or steps, that cannot be explained via the natural laws of physics.


I think the most rational guess is that the answer will turn out to be #1.

To conclude ahead of time that the answer will more likely be #2 seems unreasonable. Yet this is precisely what the fellow you've mentioned in the OP has necessarily done.

You could argue, "But he might have really good reasons for coming to his conclusion". But the problem with that argument is that if he actually had really good reasons to support that conclusion, then he should be able to communicate those reasons to the scientific community as a whole and collect his Nobel Prize for having demonstrated #2 above. Since he hasn't been awarded the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the truth of #2 above, then his choice to renounce the search for those answers is unwarranted. For all he knows #1 could well be true.

To put this in layman's terms. Unless he can show conclusively why abiogenesis cannot occur naturally then his choice to move over to theism is a choice inspired by a mentality of "The God of the Gaps".
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

PghPanther
Guru
Posts: 1242
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:18 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Abiogenesis

Post #6

Post by PghPanther »

liamconnor wrote: 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?

There are naturally occurring materials that will combine and form structures such as the dipoles of loadstones which we often refer to as magnets.............now think of the structure of the carbon atom and its exceptional valence co-bonding due to its outer electron shell of its atomic number. Among all the naturally occurring elements this one element alone can form more bonds with other elements than all the other elements are able to form with each other.

Imagine then carbon like a "chemical/electron" magnet or load stone but instead of bipole attractions it has thousands of electronic combination attractions. That is why all organic molecules are constructed by carbon chains......including the building blocks of life amino acids which form proteins............it is no surprise that carbon would be the foundation of life as we know it.

Now the process of abiogenesis and learning about how to form life hinges on understanding the chemical bonding of electron exchange from carbon under various environmental pressures. Uncounted amounts of carbon in those varied environments all over Earth in time resulted in some of these molecular chains having the ability to replicate themselves.............that at the very core is life from non life..........and while the specifics of how this occurred on the early Earth is not yet known we have clues we can study with those things that are on the boundary and reside in that grey area between the living and non living...........viruses.

In fact every time a virus goes from a non living crystalized dormant state into replication within a host cell it demonstrates a form of abiogenesis right in front our eyes.........or should we make that our electron microscopes........

In time science will find that mechanism of how life becomes the emergent property from non-living electro/chemical natural dynamics and its key will be in carbon molecular bonding....

The fact you dare science to define how life can evolve out of a rock which is primarily made of silicon demonstrates your total ignorance on the subject.

and the fact that a person who proclaims life from non life requires a divine intent from a supernatural source is the result of utter ignorance and demonstrates a complete failure on their part of taking even a few hours to study credible bio-chemical sources on the subject before making such a foolish proclamation.

In the final analysis, I'm not impressed by anyone who ends up "finding" God or the supernatural as an explanation because they don't understand how something can happen, especially when their own theistic conclusions preclude them from learning about the subject in the first place..........

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #7

Post by Neatras »

It's worth adding that we don't need special rationalizations or hastily made answers to point out why abiogenesis hasn't been observed in nature:

The chemicals that would otherwise be capable of forming replicating strands in special, rare environments, would also be considered sources of nutrition for already present organisms.

Abiogenesis has the hypothesis that life was able to originate because the abundant organic chemicals were able to provide a suitable 'sandbox' for different combinations of proto-RNA to appear, eventually forming a consistent precursor for life.

Unlike Creationism, which has to have further and further vague answers for why the evidence doesn't support it, scientists and biologists alike can point out clear reasoning and justification for what they can derive from their studies and experiments.

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm

Re: Abiogenesis

Post #8

Post by theStudent »

liamconnor wrote: 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?
There is the thought/belief/idea/speculation that abiogenesis is possible with the idea of the earth having the right conditions to allow it.
However, as far as I know, there are other factors involved.
Which apparently are vital requirements for life - that is, chirality.
Abiogenesis
Living organisms use molecules that have the same chirality ("handedness"): with almost no exceptions, amino acids are left-handed while nucleotides and sugars are right-handed.
[According to scientists]
Compounds found on meteorites suggest that the chirality of life derives from abiogenic synthesis, since amino acids from meteorites show a left-handed bias, whereas sugars show a predominantly right-handed bias, the same as found in living organisms.
However, it is known that, of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones.
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules.
Chiral molecules can be synthesized, but in the absence of a chiral source or a chiral catalyst, they are formed in a 50/50 mixture of both enantiomers (called a racemic mixture). Known mechanisms for the production of non-racemic mixtures from racemic starting materials include: asymmetric physical laws, such as the electroweak interaction; asymmetric environments, such as those caused by circularly polarized light, quartz crystals, or the Earth's rotation; and statistical fluctuations during racemic synthesis.
According to the New York Times...
This kind of 50-50 distribution, not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.
Although scientists believe it possible that the right biases could occur in outer space, two problems can be noted.
  1. not all the sugars are right-handed in outer space.
    Here is a nice article - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/space/mus ... 180959956/
    I always have to smile when I see this fact expressed.
    One of the strangest aspects of life on Earth — and possibly of life elsewhere in the cosmos — is a feature that puzzles chemists, biologists and theoretical physicists alike.
  2. amino acids found in meteorites showed excesses of left-handed forms. Living organism uae only 20.
Scientists continue to try to solve this mystery.
More Asteroids Could Have Made Life's Ingredients
POLARIZED light from space could solve a mystery about the origin of life


I'll just like to take up from where DI left off.
Divine Insight wrote:To put this in layman's terms. Unless he can show conclusively why abiogenesis cannot occur naturally then his choice to move over to theism is a choice inspired by a mentality of "The God of the Gaps".
I found all the posts above very interesting.

I am far - way way way far below you guys when it comes to breaking down these scientific "structures".
Granted, I think I am a quick learner, but of course, that's my opinion. So if I had the time to sit and read up on all this stuff, I believe I could reach B class (my opinion).
However, being the simple guy that I am, and actually appreciating that simple somhow always seem to make life, so much easier, I'll stick with simple.

Of course, I am also a person who believes in facts.
Some people assert that Theist don't believe in facts, but instead make claims.
It's ironic that I see these claims coming from non-theists, and no facts to support them.
science is not an easy subject. Which is why many people choose to declare that God did it,
I have never seen that in a fact sheet, ever.

However, I do see facts which demonstrate that reasonable people have made sensible decisions without a PhD, or ever having heard about rocket science.
What is being implied? That to believe in God is stupid, and the only sensible people are the ones who go to universities, or have a science ed?
I guess that's why the world we live in is so awesome.
This is how progress is made. Man-Made Earthquakes Update
7 million Americans at risk of man-made earthquakes, USGS says

So something as simple as this statement is useless?
Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish...
Why? Because it's not said by modern scientists?

Well I like what this scientist says:
Anthony Flew:
My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
It is evidence that leads people to have true faith, not speculation.
I'll explain my statement a bit further down.

Somehow, I can't seem to help thinking of children, whenever I think of explanations. Maybe that's primarily why simple clings to me.
So pleeeeeeeease do not get vexed with theStudent. I am just giving my humble opinion.
So here goes my simple way of looking at this.

Can a house build itself?
Why, any child would tell us no. People build houses.

What do we build houses from - air?
Again, with a giggle, the child would tell us no, and perhaps add that we use things to build houses. Some use straw, and mud, wood, stone, snow. There is such a variety of things on earth to build a house - steel, metal, sand. Even the animals use their own materials.

What's my point?
Let's say we cut some wood from a tree, of course, and place some on the ground.
Let's give it a billion, billion years - make believe we can live that long.
When we return to that spot, after those years past - uh... no civilization, just us - what would we expect to find? A house?

Our little child may tell us, "You may find rotten wood, that's what. Or no wood at all - just earth."
Why no house? There's no builder.

Well I keep hearing, "Ah, but biological things are different."
Really.

Let's see.
Why don't my cells last billions of years?
Put a little biological anything in an isolated environment for a million years, how long will it last?

But theStudent, be sensible, you are forgetting something - they reproduce.
Right. That's correct. After a million years - when it's dead.

Scientists are demonstrating how it is possible for life to come from non-life.
So what does this prove? That it did?
Compare our house example.
So because I can take various materials, and construct a house, demonstrates that the house can build itself?
Doesn't it demonstrate that a builder can build the house?

If scientists are required to gather the "materials" in their "labs" in order to produce life, does it demonstrates that it built itself?
Doesn't it demonstrate that the scientists can build it?
If the creation of complex molecules in the laboratory requires the skill of a scientist, could the far more complex molecules in a cell really arise by chance?

In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately,
they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple� cell.
Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot.
He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing — but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident?
If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?
Why not leave everything for another billion years, and watch it happen... live?

I'm forgetting - we don't live that long.
I'm also forgetting - early earth was different, the early cell was different.
Oh. Okay, so I guess there is a way to establish the exact conditions of early earth right?

That... is an example of speculation.
As well as... a huge leap of faith.
All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple� living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith
.

I think in my simple mind, and I would be confident to say, the minds of million - from janitor to medical and science professor - that they agree that this reasoning is not stupid.
I'm sure these questions are not too complex for a simple child.
Question:
If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

Question:
What takes greater faith — to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
Which brings me to the "god-of-the-gaps".
Let's just suppose then that the early earth was just right for abiogenesis to take place, and produce life from non-life, which means that it would have formed a short time after earth and water formed - almost instantaneously.
Okay. So earth formed, water formed, life formed.

Self-replication begins. An so does the gaps.
Dr. Gene Hwang
The more I thought about the origin of life, the more I became convinced that the first living thing must have been very complex. For example, it had to be able to reproduce, which requires genetic information and a mechanism for accurately replicating that information. Also, even the simplest living cell needs molecular machines for building all the parts of a new cell, as well as the means to harness and direct energy. How could such complex mechanisms assemble randomly from nonliving matter? As a mathematician, I could not accept that assumption. It asks far too much of random processes.
...And more gaps.
What we don't see...
Macroevolution — random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals that can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
What we see...
Wolf-Ekkehard Lo¨ nnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.
Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one.
This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.
Mutant fruit flies, though malformed, are still fruit flies.
Mutations can introduce changes in plants — such as this mutant with large flowers — but only within limits

Here are two more reasonable questions:
If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?

If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
Even though there are more minor gaps, let's stretch this to the major gaps - the biggest gulf of all.
Okay, so the earth formed, life formed - the universe exists.
What now?

Well logically, if everything in the universe formed itself, then the universe must have formed itself. Right?
But suppose it didn't form itself. Suppose it formed from something?
And what if that something, did not form itself, but formed from something?
And what if that something, did not form itself, but formed from something?

Sorry... repeating myself.
Sounds like the God dilemma - Who made God? How could he just exist? If God just exists, then can't there be other existing Gods?

"O' Ye of little FAITH." - they say.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #9

Post by Neatras »

The difference between theStudent's "simple" approach leading to him dismissing abiogenesis as a "leap of faith" and actual science is the reproduction of experimental results in controlled settings that provide insight into the basic characteristics of life and nature.

So when theStudent tries to write off all of the experiments as "leaps of faith," without acknowledging the fact that the experiments are required for our knowledge to increase, I'm reminded of when he so eloquently outlined his preferred modus operandi regarding how scientists should approach things such as evolution.
They should accept the facts... and move on.
Because that advances knowledge like no other method.

theStudent, you may be content because your book gives you simple answers for questions, but scientists have work to do, and you're clearly not interested in it. We'll do our experiments, and no matter the outcome, our knowledge will increase. The only reason behind wanting scientists to "move on" is that you don't want them to come to an answer you don't like.

Theology conducts no experiments, priests do no controlled tests, most of them don't even bother using data for making their exaggerated claims. So I can see why, in that sermon-filled mindset, experiments are seen as a waste of time. But experiments are what bridges the gap between speculation and knowledge. And those experiments are being conducted right now.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #10

Post by Neatras »

Now then, onto the meat of theStudent's post.
However, it is known that, of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones.
Is there some expectation that life is required to utilize all amino acids? No, if abiogenesis were a fact, then early proto-cells would utilize amino acids available to them in their environment, where the chemicals necessary are abundant.

I can even relate this to you in another way: Consider the difference between the nucleotides in RNA and DNA. RNA utilizes uracil, while DNA does not. Under RNA world hypothesis, the appropriate explanation is that the change to DNA involved the removal of uracil from the encoding of genetic data. This can be due to a number of reasons, including efficiency, abundance in the environment, etc. It is not required that every organism be high-performance machines, since evolutionary mechanics dictate that organisms reproduce and are subjected to trial and error, with the successful ones passing on genes, variation and all.

It's interesting that natural environments produce the regularity of handedness we find in life. This would imply that our ability to produce natural environments are imperfect; if we can simulate the correct environment, then we should expect handedness to also reflect that correction.

I will skip the next several paragraphs, as they are tangential and useless for the discussion.
I'll just like to take up from where DI left off.
...
...
I'll explain my statement a bit further down.
The above is skipped, because let's face it, theStudent is known for these kinds of gratuitous rants.
Somehow, I can't seem to help thinking of children, whenever I think of explanations. Maybe that's primarily why simple clings to me.
Then you'll never advance your scientific literacy, because sciences are complex elements of understanding reality. And don't assume authority if you're unwilling to actually involve yourself in the complex nuances of scientific discussions.

Your house-building analogy seems to just jump ship right at the most crucial point:
But theStudent, be sensible, you are forgetting something - they reproduce.
Right. That's correct. After a million years - when it's dead.
The above statement doesn't parse very easily. Are you implying that a dead chunk of wood will reproduce? What's more, after millions of years? No, reproduction is a by-product of organisms whose functions include replication, so of course it will persist even after the progenitor is dead. What should we expect otherwise?
Scientists are demonstrating how it is possible for life to come from non-life.
So what does this prove? That it did?
Correction, they are experimenting with various chemical processes and environments to discern whether or not self-assembling molecules can create a basic precursor for life. If such a thing is experimentally verified, then it would imply it is possible.
If scientists are required to gather the "materials" in their "labs" in order to produce life, does it demonstrates that it built itself?
Doesn't it demonstrate that the scientists can build it?
The experiments are to show if it can happen under certain conditions, then explore those conditions, then let it operate under conditions that would likely be viable in early Earth conditions. Baby steps, theStudent. It's called experimentation.
Why not leave everything for another billion years, and watch it happen... live?
Because we can learn things now if we just put in a little hard work. Elbow grease. Simple, no?

After this, I run into the portion that I addressed in my previous post; god-of-the-gaps is rebuffed because nobody is actually trying to find answers beyond "goddidit", while science uses experimentation, which is happening right now. The reason abiogenesis is a hypothesis is because it requires more data. Meaning more experiments.
If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?

If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
1. How are they unable to produce new species? It's my understanding that speciation is common, and we are more than able to select for specific traits. Is artificial selection suddenly under fire? Since when?

2. You tell me, ring species assert that new species can appear that are capable of breeding with related species, yet not species of similar relation to the second mentioned species. In short, divergent evolution led to multiple different species, each with varying degree of breeding capabilities that led to them being genetically isolated to some degree. This, and many other situations and scenarios of all kinds of diverse phenomena, are predicted and expected under evolutionary theory. Oops, I brought up predictive power, I'll just let you gloss over that without even giving it any thought. After all, you've never even once gone after that can of worms when I brought it up.

Your last few questions demonstrate that neither God nor self-producing universes are intuitively viable. So the answer becomes "I don't know". Glad we're on the same footing.

Post Reply