Abiogenisis

[Jose Fly]

I have seen that too. The demands that it be replicated in a lab are always a hoot.

Yup. A lot of creationists have a vested interest in the origin of life remaining a mystery....a gap into which they can insert their god.

One of the main reasons I requested a separate thread for this (I appreciate you guys creating one) was because I long ago grew rather tired of this particular "debate". It follows the same script, just about every time. Creationists go on and on with "prove it" and "show where they've created life in the lab", and when neither is produced, they jump straight to claims of "scientism", "it's just belief/faith", etc.

And no matter how many times different people try and explain to them that there are more than two options (proven or taken on faith), they never get it, and just continue on repeating the same script ad nauseum.

As this thread illustrates....

 

[nPeace]

And all it can do is show how bodies might have evolved from chemicals, that is what the natural world is. After doing that, does that mean that abiogenesis has demonstrated how life could come into existence through natural means?

It would have demonstrated that "life could come into existence through natural means" yes.
It would not have demonstrated that life actually did come into existence through natural means.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for pointing that out.
Scientists look for natural explanations.
So, is it fair to say, scientists, are not necessarily seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, but presupposing that the evidence must lead to natural explanations?

Oh that's rich.....seeing a Jehovah's Witness complain about others not being open to following the evidence where it leads!

As we established here multiple times, any JW that becomes an "evolutionist" will have to leave the faith (either on their own or via excommunication) and will be shunned by the JW's who stay. So to see you post the above is quite....um....ironic would be a generous characterization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not make sense either way, because merely thinking something, does not make it true.
So, even if he thinks that "only science can tell us about the world", that does not make it true.

That's an ideology, or philosophy.
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Did you read that source.that? They acknowledge that there are at least two definitions of that term. It usually means an excessive reliance on science. But they are also saying that it may simply be used if a person is using science properly and realizing that it accurately answers more questions than any other method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would have demonstrated that "life could come into existence through natural means" yes.
It would not have demonstrated that life actually did come into existence through natural means.

Wow! My wristwatch stopped! You are right.

The study of abiogenesis demonstrates that life arising naturally is possible. It shows the likely course. It does not prove since science never proves.

This is also why it beats the Bible stories hands down. I wonder if any of the naysayers can answer why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. A lot of creationists have a vested interest in the origin of life remaining a mystery....a gap into which they can insert their god.

One of the main reasons I requested a separate thread for this (I appreciate you guys creating one) was because I long ago grew rather tired of this particular "debate". It follows the same script, just about every time. Creationists go on and on with "prove it" and "show where they've created life in the lab", and when neither is produced, they jump straight to claims of "scientism", "it's just belief/faith", etc.

And no matter how many times different people try and explain to them that there are more than two options (proven or taken on faith), they never get it, and just continue on repeating the same script ad nauseum.

As this thread illustrates....

And from the start I tried to explain to the OP that science does not prove.

Nor was the OP in any position to judge the evidence. And he knows it. That is probably one of the reasons that he got so mad and refused to deal with the Miller Urey experiment.

 

[Nimos]

Hard to figure out what the atheist on here consider evidence to be.

Depends on the evidence?

 

[Jose Fly]

And from the start I tried to explain to the OP that science does not prove.

Nor was the OP in any position to judge the evidence. And he knows it. That is probably one of the reasons that he got so mad and refused to deal with the Miller Urey experiment.

It seemed to me to be the same ol' "You guys claim scientists have it figured out" and/or "You guys think Miller/Urey proved abiogenesis", without any citation, link, or quote to anyone actually saying that.

On our side, there is a way to approach it that is reasonable and logical, but I don't think our resident creationists would even listen. They're too locked in to maintaining the gap at all costs.

 

[Nimos]

Why would they have needed to evolve?

They didn't, but I think it would be the natural assumption, that RNA and DNA didn't just come into existence as they are now. But rather that they evolved from something more primitive, but that is just my guess, I am not an expert in abiogenesis at all and what exact theories they are working with.

 

[Nimos]

Pardon me, but did you not say, things would have had to be - "they would have needed to evolve".
So "they are working on it" and "trying to figure it out", based on what? A prior assumption?

Yes, as I just replied to you in the other post, I don't think the scientists working in this field believe that RNA and DNA simply existed in the shape and form as they are now. So they are trying to figure out through natural means how RNA and DNA could be made. And from my limited understanding, there are certain things which is required, and they have again from my understanding, demonstrated how some of these components could be created from simpler processes. But they have not been able to get all the way yet, they are still working on it.

 

[nPeace]

Not sure I follow. The Miller-Urey experiment provided evidence that amino acids could possibly have been synthesised on the early earth by natural processes. That's one type of building block that would have been needed. But that is just one tiny piece of the puzzle of course. For a start, the amino acids produced were racemic, rather than just the L enantiomers.

Interesting.
That's not what I heard.

What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong
The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could form in the primordial soup. But it overlooked one key variable.
......
The Miller-Urey experiment is a daring example of testing a complex hypothesis. It is also a lesson in drawing more than the most cautious and limited conclusions from it.

Watching the World
A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on the primitive earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under the abiotic conditions ...

As I've said already on this thread, the evidence for abiogenesis is the evidence that the early earth had no life.

Seriously? Wow.

That reminds me of when they thought living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular, simply because why?
"There were no flies. Now there are flies."

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia. Though challenged in the 17th and 18th centuries by the experiments of the Italian biologists Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani, it was not discredited until the work of the French chemist Louis Pasteur and the Irish physicist John Tyndall in the mid-19th century.

Such ideas have something in common with the modern hypothesis of the origin of life, which asserts that life emerged some four billion years ago from non-living materials, over a time span of millions of years, and subsequently diversified into all the forms that now exist.

Simple reasoning, huh.
Might as well believe Goddidit.

 

[exchemist]

That simply is not true. I heard about this on a video special hosted by Niel Degrasse-Tyson emphasizing how much we DON'T KNOW about the universe. And in this instance, about the origins of life. And he was the one stating that this idea that life may have come to Earth from elsewhere has been gaining popularity among scientists of late.

No offense, but when it comes to a choice between your opinions and Neil, or wikipedia, I think I'm going with Neil on this one.

I don't rate de Grasse Tyson much, so we'll have to differ on that. But I suspect he was referring to these organic precursors (e.g. the nucleotide bases) and you have misunderstood. This kind of thing: https://www.sciencenews.org/article...dna-and-rna-have-now-been-found-in-meteorites

But in any case, saying life arrived on Earth, by hitching a ride on a comet or something, simply kicks the can down the road. One would still need to work out the chemistry of how that life itself arose, wherever it did. So the challenge would remain.

 

[Valjean]

Now you're catching on. But the mice thingi has absolutely no evidence except it's mention by people who do not believe it exists. God otoh has plenty of evidence, just not evidence that science can use.
So are you saying that it is impossible that God gave life because science cannot see or analyse spirit? That doesn't make sense. It might make sense if you think that only science can tell us about the world, but we know that is not true, so it does not make sense.

What evidence do we have for God that we don't have for the mice?

 

[nPeace]

"What they did do was show that the precursors of life, amino acids could be formed in the lab".

Yeah, two.
Twenty are needed, and all twenty must be left-handed.
So no experiment have shown the precursors to life.
Every amino acid produced in the lab, had both left and right handed molecules.

Yes but no life.

Not even close, actually.

 

[exchemist]

Why, we didn't have to go in a lab to know that intelligent agents create blueprints, which are a plan with specific instructions, for reaching an intended goal of particular design.

However, the lab experiments cement that fact.
To this day, scientist have not been able to produce amino acids out of the more than 100, with only left handed molecule - all 20, needed for life.
What Is the Origin of Life?
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. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.”

That says quite a lot about the involvement of an intelligent mind.


God of the gaps?
Once there was no life on earth. Now there is life. Therefore an intelligent agent must have created life, because brains are more complex, and there were no brains on earth, but now there are, and we don't need brains really, to live. Plants don't.


Weak evidence, yes.
However, circumstantial evidence is not a conclusive, or verified position.
There is evidence of a creator. How strong, or weak that evidence is, does not verify it.
We believe, one or the other.

There is no evidence of a creator that meets the standards of science (i.e. objective, reproducible observation of nature).

If you think there is, please explain what, in your opinion, it consists of.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting.
That's not what I heard.

What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong
The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could form in the primordial soup. But it overlooked one key variable.
......
The Miller-Urey experiment is a daring example of testing a complex hypothesis. It is also a lesson in drawing more than the most cautious and limited conclusions from it.

Watching the World
A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on the primitive earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under the abiotic conditions ...


Seriously? Wow.

That reminds me of when they thought living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular, simply because why?
"There were no flies. Now there are flies."

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia. Though challenged in the 17th and 18th centuries by the experiments of the Italian biologists Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani, it was not discredited until the work of the French chemist Louis Pasteur and the Irish physicist John Tyndall in the mid-19th century.

Such ideas have something in common with the modern hypothesis of the origin of life, which asserts that life emerged some four billion years ago from non-living materials, over a time span of millions of years, and subsequently diversified into all the forms that now exist.

Simple reasoning, huh.
Might as well believe Goddidit.

Creationists.....still harping on about science as it existed 400 years ago and 70 year old lab experiments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting.
That's not what I heard.

What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong
The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could form in the primordial soup. But it overlooked one key variable.
......
The Miller-Urey experiment is a daring example of testing a complex hypothesis. It is also a lesson in drawing more than the most cautious and limited conclusions from it.

Watching the World
A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on the primitive earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under the abiotic conditions ...


Seriously? Wow.

That reminds me of when they thought living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular, simply because why?
"There were no flies. Now there are flies."

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia. Though challenged in the 17th and 18th centuries by the experiments of the Italian biologists Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani, it was not discredited until the work of the French chemist Louis Pasteur and the Irish physicist John Tyndall in the mid-19th century.

Such ideas have something in common with the modern hypothesis of the origin of life, which asserts that life emerged some four billion years ago from non-living materials, over a time span of millions of years, and subsequently diversified into all the forms that now exist.

Simple reasoning, huh.
Might as well believe Goddidit.

Within the last month or so I read an article that refuted that one. Ironically, it was the glassware that was one of the things that Miller Urey got right. Glass is a silicate. Experiments done with silicates tended to work well opposed to experiments with rubber hoses. Silicates are found EVERYWHERE on the surface of the Earth. It is just about impossible not to find them. Rubber, especially at the time of abiogenesis would not have existed on the surface or anywhere else back then.

The silicates were fine since they mimicked elements that would be run into in nature. Rubber, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationists.....still harping on about science as it existed 400 years ago and 70 year old lab experiments.

And still consistently getting it wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for pointing that out.
Scientists look for natural explanations.
So, is it fair to say, scientists, are not necessarily seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, but presupposing that the evidence must lead to natural explanations?

On the contrary, they absolutely follow the evidence, but it has to be evidence that consists of observations of nature that are reproducible and thus can be deemed objective.

This is the second post now in which you have alluded to some kind of evidence that you think science is ignoring. Can you explain what you have in mind?

 

[nPeace]

But we have good evidence there was no life on the early earth.

If that is true, then abiogenesis automatically follows.

I wonder why.
Since there are presents under the Christmas tree, then Santa Clause automatically follows. Huh?
Doesn't follow, does it?