Producing life from non living matter

[Kirran]

And the DNA has a repairing mechanism, why do you think it has such function?

-DNA doesn't have a repair mechanism. The cellular machinery in many but not all lifeforms includes components which aim to reduce inevitable replication error.-

Why gradual? what if we assume that the DNA doesn't replicate
itself and it doesn't mutate, will evolution happen?

-It doesn't replicate itself. If you have any interest in understanding this topic rather than plugging an agenda you need to pay attention, as I've told you that. DNA replication is an intrinsic component of cellular machinery. If it fails to replicate DNA, reproduction can't happen and an organism itself won't last very long.-

I didn't understand, would you please clarify?

-My answer was neither.-

What made the sequences at first place? how it started?

Emergent chemical processes.

I responded within your post, markes with hyphens, as I'm on my phone. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[omega2xx]

Your problem is you need a perfect vacuum and you ain't got one.

Nope, In the quantum realm it's false vacuums[/QUOTE]

A false vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, making your sparks of no consequence.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't see your point. This is elementary, high school biology. Everyone knows this.
Other scientists may say the genome is complex, inasmuch as it's a long chain that must have certain sections in specific order, but no-one sees the structure as particularly complex.
All you have to do is goggle "complexity of DNA" and there you will find many scientist more qualified than you who say it is.

Certainly it does! These mechanisms are the very foundations of biology. How did you not learn this??

Talk is cheap. Give me an example and be sure to include the science that explains HOW.

Yes, but the sequences aren't just a roll of the dice. There are mechanisms that lock in functional sequences and delete dysfunctional ones. Only the genes that get it right get reproduced.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better.

DNA builds itself the same way chemical A added to chemical B will produce compound C -- automatically, according to the laws of chemistry. It doesn't need an invisible hand to guide it. Nor does it need any magical mechanism to replicate, once the sequences are established.

Pass the bread, Now I can make a bolony sandwich.

It's all a series of simple, little baby steps. Don't ignore the simple mechanisms involved and argue that the final result is too complex to have happened without magic. That's an argument from incredulity.

Even if everything you said is true, and it isn't, it still doesn't explain how the parents with no gene for a characteristic fins, can ever have a kid with fins. And it certainly does not explain how life can originate from lifeless elements. You see this is about real science and if magic is needed, you are the one that needs it.

 

[omega2xx]

Organic Chemistry is any chemistry that has carbon and hydrogen covalent bonds. In the 19th century it was mistakenly thought such chemistry can only come from life, but by early 20th century this misconception was corrected when non living chemical processes were discovered that could do those same things. But the name, now a misnomer, stuck. Just like atom which means indivisible, but now can be divided into many parts.

Organic chemistry - Wikipedia
Organic chemistry is a chemistry subdiscipline involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms.[1] Study of structure includes many physical and chemical methods to determine the chemical composition and the chemical constitution of organic compounds and materials. Study of properties includes both physical properties and chemical properties, and uses similar methods as well as methods to evaluate chemical reactivity, with the aim to understand the behavior of the organic matter in its pure form (when possible), but also in solutions, mixtures, and fabricated forms. The study of organic reactions includes probing their scope through use in preparation of target compounds (e.g., natural products, drugs, polymers, etc.) by chemical synthesis, as well as the focused study of the reactivities of individual organic molecules, both in the laboratory and via theoretical (in silico) study.


I have PhD in organic chemistry FYI.

Organic Chemistry - American Chemical Society


Organic chemistry is the study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation of carbon-containing compounds, which include not only hydrocarbons but also compounds with any number of other elements, including hydrogen (most compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond), nitrogen, oxygen, halogens, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur. This branch of chemistry was originally limited to compounds produced by living organisms but has been broadened to include human-made substances such as plastics. The range of application of organic compounds is enormous and also includes, but is not limited to, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, food, explosives, paints, and cosmetics.



You did not answer my question. Which of the compounds mentioned in the recipe by which the researchers created living cells was alive?

Your link mentioned organic material. They didn't start with all non-organic elements. That's why I asks what organic means.

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis - the scientist have not proved this.

They have not 'proved' that germs cause disease or that the Earth circles the Sun, either -- but they have a whole lot of supporting evidence.

Whilst they play with idea that life came from a non-living material it would appear the process of life shows it can only come from living material by duplication.

It appears nothing of the sort. We know that Earth was once barren and now has life, so it happened somehow. You propose it occurred by magic, by an invisible personage we have no evidence for.
Science proposes it occurred by ordinary, observable, testable, natural mechanisms, and have amassed a lot of evidence for this.
Which seems more reasonable?

I recommend scientist stop looking for the impossible and admit they do not and cannot find the answer to how human life first became existent on this planet.
There are more non-scientific people arguing theories than scientist themselves.

Yet scientists have been finding the mechanisms behind the impossible for centuries. Why should abiogenesis be any different? Why do you insist the mechanism cannot be discovered? Why do you consider magic a reasonable "mechanism?"

The theories of non-scientific people aren't really theories, are they? They're folklore and conjecture. They have no empirical support. They're false dilemmas.

We have all the things which existed in the beginning except the answer to how they existed from the beginning.
God cursed the soil early on, we see he breathed life into man, so we cannot replicate or make a man ourselves.
The joke about God and the scientist is really very apt.

When, exactly, was the beginning?
We don't have all the things that existed. Aren't 99% of all species that ever existed now extinct?
What evidence do you have for this God?
What does "curse the soil" mean, and what evidence do you have that He did this?

We don't see that God "breathed life" into anything. We don't even see evidence that this God exists.

Resolution, you're just preaching. Anyone can preach. What we look for in this forum is evidence for the opinions expressed.
Try to make an actual case for your views, SVP.

It remains the truth .... no man can duplicate the creation of life or of man. Living material produces living material.
The living God created man.Life proceeded from Life no other explanation from scientist has been able to suffice.

Preaching again. They said man would never fly, either.
Are you aware of the research in abiogenesis?

 

[ChristineM]

Nope, In the quantum realm it's false vacuums

A false vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, making your sparks of no consequence.[/QUOTE]


I am showing your requirement for a perfect vacuum to be irrelevant in quantum physics, as quantum physics is the realm i was discussing then you need to be arguing with particle physicists, not me.

 

[omega2xx]

A false vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, making your sparks of no consequence.

I am showing your requirement for a perfect vacuum to be irrelevant in quantum physics, as quantum physics is the realm i was discussing then you need to be arguing with particle physicists, not me.[/QUOTE]

It is not my requirement, it is the requirement of real science. You brought up quantum physics not me, but it is irrelevant which fairy tale you want to put it under. It is scientifically impossible to make something out of nothing.

That is a real no-brainer, a great big DUUH.

 

[sayak83]

Your link mentioned organic material. They didn't start with all non-organic elements. That's why I asks what organic means.

All compounds of carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds. Nothing to do with life.

 

[ChristineM]

I am showing your requirement for a perfect vacuum to be irrelevant in quantum physics, as quantum physics is the realm i was discussing then you need to be arguing with particle physicists, not me.

It is not my requirement, it is the requirement of real science. You brought up quantum physics not me, but it is irrelevant which fairy tale you want to put it under. It is scientifically impossible to make something out of nothing.

That is a real no-brainer, a great big DUUH.[/QUOTE]


Ahh ok so quantum physics is not real science? Fair enough.

There is nothing in science to say nothing cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you can provide a citation to your claim that "It is scientifically impossible to make something out of nothing."

Or at least a scientific paper that puts the creation of the second law of thermodynamics before the bb event.

Either will do to prove your claim is correct, however seeing as no one has ever published such a paper i won't hold my breath waiting

 

[omega2xx]

All compounds of carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds. Nothing to do with life.

Not according to t he definition in my dictionary.

 

[omega2xx]

It is not my requirement, it is the requirement of real science. You brought up quantum physics not me, but it is irrelevant which fairy tale you want to put it under. It is scientifically impossible to make something out of nothing.

That is a real no-brainer, a great big DUUH.

Ahh ok so quantum physics is not real science? Fair enough.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say or even imply that. What is not real science is you trying to make a spark the source of nothing in a imperfect vacuum.

]There is nothing in science to say nothing cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you can provide a citation to your claim that "It is scientifically impossible to make something out of nothing."

Of course science doesn't say it, Unless they could prove it, they would look foolish, like you are.

Or at least a scientific paper that puts the creation of the second law of thermodynamics before the bb event.

There is also no real scientific evidence for a BB. To have a BB you first need to explain the source for the matter and the energy for it to go bang.

Either will do to prove your claim is correct, however seeing as no one has ever published such a paper i won't hold my breath waiting

I don't have to prove anything. You said it is possible, it is up to you to prove what you said.

 

[ChristineM]

Ahh ok so quantum physics is not real science? Fair enough.

I didn't say or even imply that. What is not real science is you trying to make a spark the source of nothing in a imperfect vacuum.



Of course science doesn't say it, Unless they could prove it, they would look foolish, like you are.



There is also no real scientific evidence for a BB. To have a BB you first need to explain the source for the matter and the energy for it to go bang.



I don't have to prove anything. You said it is possible, it is up to you to prove what you said.[/QUOTE]


Yes you did, you said it was irrelevant

Like you are, remember you are the one denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics

No you don't need to mollify your criteria, pre big bang theory is not required just as in the type of explosive is not required to know when a bomb has exploded

What you do need is multiple lines of observed evidence which corroborate each other such as Hubble's measurement's (refined) and red shift, the cmb, type a1 supernova intensities etc. Evidence you appear to be denying

Here is my proof
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Now you made a statement so either prove it or retract it

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I see no point here

How can a perfect language screw up so badly as to make fetuses without a brain.

And you said you believe in God due to experience and you believe in God without the need of proof and then you think the work of God is unorganized,
you're funny indeed.

Babies don't come out spouting monologues. You have to help them train to acquire language if their biology will even let you. That there is even a maturation process shows that God clearly didn't just make things "perfect" (what is "perfect"?) right out the gate.

And how an unorganized thing can lead to an organized outcome?

For example the transistors are simple, they're used to amplify
the electric current, there are different types of it and each has
a code, the same thing for resistors, capacitors and other components,
now connecting them in a specific way is what makes it work, connecting
it in a random way for millions of years will lead to rubbish.

Connecting randomly is precisely what happens, from biology to artificial intelligence.

now let monkeys live in the city with humans
and let them reproduce for millions of years, will they evolve to humans or similar to humans?

Why not? There is more to evolution than just biology. Behavior and environment also changes things. Apes in zoos can play video games while the jungle ones can't. Teach apes to sign and the communication style will spread. I've even seen an ape cook with fire. I'm endlessly fascinated to see how tweaking ape behavior will go. In order to evolve into something "else", you need the right stimuli to "demand" it or else the species will die out if no one can adapt. Giving nonhumans some more ideas on how to do stuff might just give them an edge later on.

I am a big fan of the Planet of the Apes series, but the most current ones do much better at showing the gradual evolution, from no ape speaking to Caesar changing enough in physiology to permit speech to it happening to his family and later to multiple apes across the board. This is more realistic than "time traveling anthropomorphic ape gives birth and glosses over the necessary development" answer the original movies did.

Why the errors are so limited that not affecting the species? what if the errors
made the eyes close to the anus, or the mouth close to the anus, regardless
if that will cause the failure of the species but still what control the process,
IOW why copying mistakes are so tiny and even repairable?

Teeth can grow anywhere ...

I recommend scientist stop looking for the impossible

"... and admit that you can make humans out of a pile of dirt, which is somehow far more likely in my mind."

God looked at him and said, "No, no! You go get your own dirt!"

What was the mechanism God used to make dirt? If it's just "let things rot until it becomes dirt", hell, we can do that!

If God did something to the natural universe, we can reverse engineer it given enough time and smarts and resources.

 

[sayak83]

Not according to t he definition in my dictionary.

Terminology used in science are different from that in common English.
organic compound | chemical compound
organic compound, any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements, most commonly hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. The few carbon-containing compounds not classified as organic include carbides, carbonates, and cyanides. See chemical compound.

Organic compounds do not have to do anything with life, though living things have them too.

In science papers, all words are used as defined in science, not common English.

 

[FearGod]

I didn't say or even imply that. What is not real science is you trying to make a spark the source of nothing in a imperfect vacuum.



Of course science doesn't say it, Unless they could prove it, they would look foolish, like you are.



There is also no real scientific evidence for a BB. To have a BB you first need to explain the source for the matter and the energy for it to go bang.



I don't have to prove anything. You said it is possible, it is up to you to prove what you said.


Yes you did, you said it was irrelevant

Like you are, remember you are the one denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics

No you don't need to mollify your criteria, pre big bang theory is not required just as in the type of explosive is not required to know when a bomb has exploded

What you do need is multiple lines of observed evidence which corroborate each other such as Hubble's measurement's (refined) and red shift, the cmb, type a1 supernova intensities etc. Evidence you appear to be denying

Here is my proof
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Now you made a statement so either prove it or retract it

Nothing means nothing, not even a vacuum, no space of any kind, simply unreality
and such condition doesn't exist on earth to even make any studies about it because we're living in a reality, in a space which actually is made to exist.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't say or even imply that. What is not real science is you trying to make a spark the source of nothing in a imperfect vacuum.



Of course science doesn't say it, Unless they could prove it, they would look foolish, like you are.



There is also no real scientific evidence for a BB. To have a BB you first need to explain the source for the matter and the energy for it to go bang.



I don't have to prove anything. You said it is possible, it is up to you to prove what you said.

]Yes you did, you said it was irrelevant

It is irrelevant unless you c n prove what you said, and you can't

Like you are, remember you are the one denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics

I don't understand the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics and since there id not 100% agreement if our system is closed or not, even some of the "exerts" don't understand it completely either.

No you don't need to mollify your criteria, pre big bang theory is not required just as in the type of explosive is not required to know when a bomb has exploded

No so. If you claim there was a BB you need to show where the matter originated that went bang and you need to show the origin of the energy that cause it.

What you do need is multiple lines of observed evidence which corroborate each other such as Hubble's measurement's (refined) and red shift, the cmb, type a1 supernova intensities etc. Evidence you appear to be denying

What you needs to is show, scientifically of course, How a red shift HOW it and the other things you mentioned did cause it. To say the movement of colors is evidence of a BB is laughable. So is the claim that the universe is expanding. Since we have never see the edge of the universe, we have no idea if it is expanding. The movement of things in the universe many will have a better explanation and for all you know what we see is what "God originally created. Do you never think about what you accept by faith alone?

Here is my proof
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Once upon a time...and they lived happily ever after---in ignorance

Anyone who thinks there a mathematical formula that proves the universe spontaneously formed our of nothing needs to go back to college and major in logic, and minor the ability to tell a myth from reality.

Now you made a statement so either prove it or retract it[/QUOTE]

I will prove what I said or retract it as soon as you prove what you said or retract it.

 

[omega2xx]

Terminology used in science are different from that in common English.
organic compound | chemical compound
organic compound, any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements, most commonly hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. The few carbon-containing compounds not classified as organic include carbides, carbonates, and cyanides. See chemical compound.

Organic compounds do not have to do anything with life, though living things have them too.

In science papers, all words are used as defined in science, not common English.

How convenient. Use them any way that makes it fit the doctrines of you faith.

 

[Valjean]

How convenient. Use them any way that makes it fit the doctrines of you faith.

No. We use the definitions understood and used by the experts in the fields being discussed

 

[sayak83]

How convenient. Use them any way that makes it fit the doctrines of you faith.

No its not. Science is not beholden to parochial meanings of any day to day language, English or Chinese. All scientific terms are redefined to very precise meanings. You can replace the word " organic compound" with the word carbon and hydrogen containing compounds in any scientific literature and it will mean the same thing. You can dodge and whine as much as you want, none of the reagents used to create the living cell that grew and replicated in the lab came from a previously living source, but all were artificially synthesized hydrocarbon compounds. Deal with it.


Furthermore, it is you who have deliberately taken the word "organic" out of context. I clearly said that the compounds were ordered from organic chemistry stores. The word organic chemistry is clearly defined in the dictionary as,

organic chemistry - definition of organic chemistry in English | Oxford Dictionaries

organic chemistry


NOUN
mass noun

• The branch of chemistry that deals with carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).
  

Organic chemistry definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
noun
the branch of chemistry concerned with the compounds of carbon: originally confined to compounds produced by living organisms but now extended to include man-madesubstances based on carbon, such as plastics

It's an entire and highly well established branch of chemistry that makes everything from plastics to rubber.

Organic Chemistry - American Chemical Society

Organic chemistry is the study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation of carbon-containing compounds, which include not only hydrocarbons but also compounds with any number of other elements, including hydrogen (most compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond), nitrogen, oxygen, halogens, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur. This branch of chemistry was originally limited to compounds produced by living organisms but has been broadened to include human-made substances such as plastics. The range of application of organic compounds is enormous and also includes, but is not limited to, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, food, explosives, paints, and cosmetics.

So it's you who is distorting the usage, not me.

 

[ChristineM]

Nothing means nothing, not even a vacuum, no space of any kind, simply unreality
and such condition doesn't exist on earth to even make any studies about it because we're living in a reality, in a space which actually is made to exist.

Depends on your interpretation of nothing, nothing with dimensions or nothing without, both are accepted in science if states correctly

False vacuums occur billions ^ billions of times a second in the quantum domain, most are annihilated

Don't worry, Einstein couldn't understand the quantum domain either