On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

The experiment produced amino acids. The building blocks of life. Complex molecules of the kind that your ilk likes to brand as "too complex" to form naturally and which "had to be designed".

Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules (in this case amino acids) could be formed from inorganic materials by what they considered to possibly be natural environmental conditions as they thought it might have been, such as acidic solution, heat and electrical discharge (lightning), without the mediation of enzymes. (https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Darwin cared about them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules (in this case amino acids) could be formed from inorganic materials by what they considered to possibly be natural environmental conditions as they thought it might have been, such as acidic solution, heat and electrical discharge (lightning), without the mediation of enzymes. (https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.)

Yeah, you have successfully repeated what I just said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The experiment produced amino acids. The building blocks of life. Complex molecules of the kind that your ilk likes to brand as "too complex" to form naturally and which "had to be designed".

That's all very very true.

But the question raised was, have scientists formed life from non-life. The answer is still no. Amino acids may be organic material, but they are not life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's all very very true.

But the question raised was, have scientists formed life from non-life. The answer is still no. Amino acids may be organic material, but they are not life.

Sure. And I didn't say it produced life. I instead noted what it did produce.
And I think it's important to do that, because creationists tend to present the field of abiogenesis as some kind of black and white thing.
As in: either we have solved abiogenesis OR we know literally diddly squat about it.

And that is just a false statement.
We haven't completed the full puzzle. But it's also not the case that we don't have a single piece of said puzzle.
There's actually quite a lot that we DO know and understand in the field of abiogenesis.

And as the research continues, we learn more and more about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not exactly right. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation that is testable. It has also never been shown to be wrong. The explanation also makes predictions that can be used to confirm or refute it. Please note one cannot "prove" it, but it can at least possibly pass the tests given for it. Usually by the time that a lay person has heard of a hypothesis it has been confirmed several times. Please not, it could still be wrong.

A theory is the same thing, except that it covers a broader area of study and has been tested and confirmed countless times. A scientific theory is an idea that is extremely well supported by evidence and has never been refuted. The theory of evolution may be the strongest theory in all of the sciences. It has been tested and confirmed millions of times. It is as close to being an "absolute fact" as possible.

This does not justify the misuse of the word "fact." This type of reasoning leads understanding of science down the Yellow Brick Road of meaningless dialogue,

Is the above sarcasm? Bad wording how science considers the sciences of evolution.

Yes, the sciences of evolution have demonstrated beyond any doubt, but the knowledge increases over time, Facts do not change over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This does not justify the misuse of the word "fact." This type of reasoning leads understanding of science down the Yellow Brick Road of meaningless dialogue,

Is the above sarcasm? Bad wording how science considers the sciences of evolution.

Yes, the sciences of evolution have demonstrated beyond any doubt, but the knowledge increases over time, Facts do not change over time.

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact". In the sciences a fact is an observation that has been tested and confirmed countless times and never shown to be wrong, but one still has to keep an open mind. I do not know if I could think of an actual scientific fact that has ever been shown to be wrong, but one has to be willing to keep an open mind that even gravity or evolution could possibly (but I have absolutely no idea how) be shown to be wrong. Constant testing of one's ideas is a hallmark of the sciences. With evolution it is almost always individual hypotheses within the science that are tested and at times thrown out, but those only give us a clearer picture of how evolution happened. It is possible to still test the overarching theory, but all known tests today can be easily confirmed. It is why it is a fact, but it is a testable fact.

 

[icant]

The primary goal of the Miller-Urey experiment was to test the hypothesis that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic compounds under conditions thought to exist on early Earth, essentially demonstrating the possibility of abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-living matter.

Their primary goal was to produce life from non life.

Did Friedrich Wöhler's experiment prove that life could be produced from non-life?
No, his synthesis of urea demonstrated that the boundary between inorganic and organic matter wasn’t fixed as Scientist thought.

Enjoy,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Their primary goal was to produce life from non life.

No. It never was. They were not that foolish. The only purpose was to show that certain chemicals that were thought at that time to be ony formed by life could be formed naturally. That was their goal and they accomplished that. The problem is that those on the science side often mistakenly claim that Miler Urey proved abiogenesis and it did not do that.

Did Friedrich Wöhler's experiment prove that life could be produced from non-life?
No, his synthesis of urea demonstrated that the boundary between inorganic and organic matter wasn’t fixed as Scientist thought.

Enjoy,

It did not prove life from non-life either. It merely shot down another argument used by those that oppose abiogenesis.

As to abiogenesis itself we may never know for sure how it actually occurred. Not because it is impossible, but because some of the problems of abiogenesis have more than one 'right" answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact". In the sciences a fact is an observation that has been tested and confirmed countless times and never shown to be wrong, but one still has to keep an open mind. I do not know if I could think of an actual scientific fact that has ever been shown to be wrong, but one has to be willing to keep an open mind that even gravity or evolution could possibly (but I have absolutely no idea how) be shown to be wrong. Constant testing of one's ideas is a hallmark of the sciences. With evolution it is almost always individual hypotheses within the science that are tested and at times thrown out, but those only give us a clearer picture of how evolution happened. It is possible to still test the overarching theory, but all known tests today can be easily confirmed. It is why it is a fact, but it is a testable fact.

I reject the above terminology describing the sciences of evolution and represent click bait for fundamentalists attacking evolution, It doe not remotely fit the the English definition of "fact."

 

[icant]

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact". In the sciences a fact is an observation that has been tested and confirmed countless times and never shown to be wrong, but one still has to keep an open mind. I do not know if I could think of an actual scientific fact that has ever been shown to be wrong, but one has to be willing to keep an open mind that even gravity or evolution could possibly (but I have absolutely no idea how) be shown to be wrong. Constant testing of one's ideas is a hallmark of the sciences. With evolution it is almost always individual hypotheses within the science that are tested and at times thrown out, but those only give us a clearer picture of how evolution happened. It is possible to still test the overarching theory, but all known tests today can be easily confirmed. It is why it is a fact, but it is a testable fact.

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

As to abiogenesis itself we may never know for sure how it actually occurred. Not because it is impossible, but because some of the problems of abiogenesis have more than one 'right" answer.

Life only began to exist one time, then you had life existing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Their primary goal was to produce life from non life.

Did Friedrich Wöhler's experiment prove that life could be produced from non-life?

Of course not, it is old and actually more contemporary research updated his work. still no proof here.

You perpetually abuse the English language and science by using phony terminology such as accusations of the need and use of "proof" in science

No, his synthesis of urea demonstrated that the boundary between inorganic and organic matter wasn’t fixed as Scientist thought.

Enjoy,

No enjoyment here concerning your selective abuse of science, I doubt seriously that you have any qualification to make the statements and conclusion you make The research and discoveries concerning abiogenesis is work in progress. There has far more discoveries and research since that have demonstrated the processes of abiogenesis, such as the following example . . .

Nanostructures in the deep ocean floor hint at life's origin

Researchers led by Ryuhei Nakamura at the RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science (CSRS) in Japan and The Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) of Tokyo Institute of Technology have discovered inorganic nanostructures surrounding deep-ocean hydrothermal vents that are strikingly similar to...

phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2024-09-nanostructures-deep-ocean-floor-hint.html#

---

September 25, 2024
Editors' notes

Nanostructures in the deep ocean floor hint at life's origin​

by RIKEN

a) Photograph of HV precipitates collected from the Shinkai Seep Field. b) Cross-polarized optical microscope images of precipitates in cross section. c,d) Scanning electron images showing layers within the precipitates. f) Magnification showing sublayers in the boxed area of d. Credit: RIKEN

Researchers led by Ryuhei Nakamura at the RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science (CSRS) in Japan and The Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) of Tokyo Institute of Technology have discovered inorganic nanostructures surrounding deep-ocean hydrothermal vents that are strikingly similar to molecules that make life as we know it possible. These nanostructures are self-organized and act as selective ion channels, which create energy that can be harnessed in the form of electricity.

Published Sept. 25 in Nature Communications, the findings impact not only our understanding of how life began, but can also be applied to industrial blue-energy harvesting.

When seawater seeps way down into the Earth through cracks in the ocean floor, it gets heated by magma, rises back up to the surface, and is released back into the ocean through fissures called hydrothermal vents. The rising hot water contains dissolved minerals gained from its time deep in the Earth, and when it meets the cool ocean water, chemical reactions force the mineral ions out of the water where they form solid structures around the vent called precipitates.
Hydrothermal vents are thought to be the birthplace of life on Earth because they provide the necessary conditions: they are stable, rich in minerals, and contain sources of energy. Much of life on Earth relies on osmotic energy, which is created by ion gradients—the difference in salt and proton concentration—between the inside and outside of living cells.
The RIKEN CSRS researchers were studying serpentinite-hosted hydrothermal vents because this kind of vent has mineral precipitates with a very complex layered structure formed from metal oxides, hydroxides, and carbonates.
"Unexpectedly, we discovered that osmotic energy conversion, a vital function in modern plant, animal, and microbial life, can occur abiotically in a geological environment," says Nakamura.

The researchers were studying samples collected from the Shinkai Seep Field, located in the Pacific Ocean's Mariana Trench at a depth of 5,743 m. The key sample was an 84-cm piece composed mostly of brucite. Optical microscopes and scans with micrometer-sized X-ray beams revealed that brucite crystals were arranged in continuous columns that acted as nano-channels for the vent fluid.

The researchers noticed that the surface of the precipitate was electrically charged, and that the size and direction of the charge—positive or negative—varied across the surface. Knowing that structured nanopores with variable charge are the hallmarks of osmotic energy conversion, they next tested whether osmotic energy conversion was indeed occurring naturally in the inorganic deep-sea rock.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No

No, it is a physical observation of the existence of the universe, Some observe it and claim it is maybe 6,000 to 10,000 old and geocentric. Science reaches its conclusions concerning the nature of the universe based on the objective verifiable evidence far beyond the simple observation that the universe exists, with questions still unanswered concerning the history of the universe and whether we are pert of a Multi-verse.

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No.

OK the Sun exists as an objective observation. Some believe the Sun is not the center of the universe. The earth is..

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No

Yes, it is an objective observation.

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No.

Some believe it is made of cheese.

Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Enjoy,

The above questions are superficial not meaningful and not the hard questions of science today, which you avoid addressing with phony claims of the need for "proof.".

 

[metis]

It is the creation of life from non-life. And no human has ever done this.

I don't know about that as my wife & I created three kids.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Enjoy,

No, none of those are "absolute scientific facts". There is no such a thing. In the sciences all facts are recognized to be provisional. It is due to this honesty that scientific facts are far more reliable than any other "facts". But thank you for supporting that evolution is a fact as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life only began to exist one time, then you had life existing.

That is not necessarily true. Life may have came into existence multiple times. The evidence indicates that life arose successfully only once.
In other words a form of live may have arisen, but it died out, went extinct. That could have happened millions of times until there was a version of life that was robust enough to continue to live and reproduce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reject the above terminology describing the sciences of evolution and represent click bait for fundamentalists attacking evolution, It doe not remotely fit the the English definition of "fact."

I was thinking more along the lines of a scientific fact:

"

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
  
  
  

  Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

  Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work.

  ncse.ngo

In the sciences all facts are provisional. One has to keep an open mind. And even though that seems to be weaker than the English definition of "fact" this actually makes scientific "facts" far more reliable than any other observations that are called facts. Yes, creationists will lie by distorting what others say. One has to lie to debate for creationism at all.

It is when an observation contrary to theory and "scientific facts" is repeatedly and reliably observed that scientists get all sorts of excited and happy. That means that they have made a major discovery and now they have the fun of explaining.`

And I just thought of a "scientific fact" that was recently refuted. It used to be a scientific fact that "soft tissue" could not survive millions of years. Not only did the woman that observe it demonstrate that it was repeatable, she also was the first to explain the mechanism of its preservation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure. And I didn't say it produced life. I instead noted what it did produce.
And I think it's important to do that, because creationists tend to present the field of abiogenesis as some kind of black and white thing.
As in: either we have solved abiogenesis OR we know literally diddly squat about it.

And that is just a false statement.
We haven't completed the full puzzle. But it's also not the case that we don't have a single piece of said puzzle.
There's actually quite a lot that we DO know and understand in the field of abiogenesis.

And as the research continues, we learn more and more about it.

As far as I know, assertions have been made that it exemplified abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I know, assertions have been made that it exemplified abiogenesis.

Yes, people made mistakes. So what? Again, this sort of bad argument does not help you. I already admitted that some people put the wrong interpretation on the work.

By the way, this once again, demonstrates that you do not understand the sciences very well at all. When a scientist first encounters a very complex problem they very very rarely try to solve it all in one go. The easy problems in science were solved a long time ago. Now all that is left are rather complex ones. So scientists break them down.

At the time of the Miller Urey experiment we knew far less about life than we do now. The opposition knew far less too. One of their claims was that abiogenesis was impossible because amino acids do not form naturally. All that Miller Urey did was to show that this claim was wrong. That did not "prove" abiogenesis. I have seen many people make that mistake. It only showed that the doorway to life was not sealed shut by that particular means.