Producing life from non living matter

[Milton Platt]

While we have knowledge and minds and still we can't create a living creature, but the unconscious nature did it.



What makes you that certain and sure?

Because there is proof that theists exist?

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't make the challenge, God made it knowing that we'll never do it.
Don't you see how silly it's when believing that the unconscious nature did it while we claim
that we don't have the knowledge yet to do it?

In essence life has been created from non living matter. Guanine, Adenine, Thymine and Cytosine are non living chemical compounds that make dna. Add to those, two synthetic compounds and you get life that did not develop naturally. Yes this is real, google Floyd Romesberg at the Scripps Research Institute.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The former is about the actual fly which is God's creation, the fly is small in size and the things that it gets is so tiny that we have no power to get it back from the weak fly.

Good point. I've tried in vain many times to wrestle flies for what they have.

I recently asked a fly who had alit upon his favorite resting place if the stool beside him was taken, and he just buzzed off. Go figure.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where do you draw the line between life and non-life?

Ben Carson has got to be close.

 

[osgart]

there has to be a forming field force at work made of intelligence, like the akashic field.

methinks there is a superseding force non physical and omnipresent.

that force would be the creators paintbrush upon our reality.

an intelligent code must exist.

 

[Vaderecta]

If life wasn't a product done by a creator, then what prevents us from creating it
the same way as it has been done by the unconscious nature.

This challenge was offered by God thousands years ago, as to create living creatures, can we?

If this is all our God claims to master we have a lot more to fear than I thought. This is and has been within our realm for years. I like to think we haven't created lab humans but who cares about what I like I to think.

 

[Sunstone]

If life wasn't a product done by a creator, then what prevents us from creating it
the same way as it has been done by the unconscious nature.

This challenge was offered by God thousands years ago, as to create living creatures, can we?

It's only a matter of time before we create living creatures.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Life can't be always existing since we know that life has a beginning and will have an end, the same thing
can be said about the universe which has a beginning, so rationally saying the thing that was always existing
should be beyond our time and space.

Why does anything have to have a beginning? No matter what school of thought you accept, it doesn't make sense to think that something came from nothing. No matter what, there was always something that existed. Non-existence would mean zilch, zero, NO-THING, not even empty space, NO-thing that could produce anything. Life always existed and always will because it continues through it's offspring. BTW I know about the "big bang" theory of the beginning of the universe, but there have always been scientists who questioned the "big bang" theory and suggested that maybe the universe has no beginning or end. I sight the second law of physics, "matter cannot be created or destroyed" as proof of my hypothesis that the universe is infinite. But that doesn't exclude something like a guiding intelligence from ordering things according to a plan. Benedict Spinoza regarded matter and spirit as one and the same, as manifestations of a third "essence" which is "god," similar to the ancient Greek idea of a quintessence or "ether" that engendered all other elements. I propose a kind of pantheism. God is all.

 

[FearGod]

Why does anything have to have a beginning? No matter what school of thought you accept, it doesn't make sense to think that something came from nothing. No matter what, there was always something that existed. Non-existence would mean zilch, zero, NO-THING, not even empty space, NO-thing that could produce anything. Life always existed and always will because it continues through it's offspring. BTW I know about the "big bang" theory of the beginning of the universe, but there have always been scientists who questioned the "big bang" theory and suggested that maybe the universe has no beginning or end. I sight the second law of physics, "matter cannot be created or destroyed" as proof of my hypothesis that the universe is infinite. But that doesn't exclude something like a guiding intelligence from ordering things according to a plan. Benedict Spinoza regarded matter and spirit as one and the same, as manifestations of a third "essence" which is "god," similar to the ancient Greek idea of a quintessence or "ether" that engendered all other elements. I propose a kind of pantheism. God is all.

I believe that the scientists got it right regarding the big bang, it's the same as the toe, we know that evolution had happened but the theory is about how it happened.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your analogy doesn't actually make sense, if the scientists think the same as you do then they'll never even think
to create a living cell from the non living materials.

At this point I am starting to believe the reason behind your "missing the point" to be a willful one. No surprise, surely. It is a very prolific tactic employed by people who don't want to have to admit something that is difficult for them to admit.

I am only giving you something you take for granted - cheeseburgers, or the supposed "simplicity" of cheeseburgers, and showing you how infinitely difficult it would be to simply "create" a cheeseburger from scratch. It is, indeed, impossible for you at this time. There is no such technology to accomplish this feat. And I am juxtaposing this against your claim that scientists take for granted the "simplicity" of life. That they believe it was able to arise from non-life is a mark on the simplicity of their view of life, in your opinion, is it not? And you are saying to scientists: "If life if so easy, then why can't you create it?" So I am saying to you: "If cheeseburgers are so easy, then why can't you create one?" In both instances we obviously have naturally occurring routes to go through: "creating" another animal by procreation, or "creating" a cheeseburger through the gathering of ingredients. But you aren't asking the scientist to create another animal this way. Nor am I asking you to create another cheeseburger this way. What I am saying is that creating life from non-life is just as difficult as crafting a cheeseburger from the raw atomic materials of the universe. Perhaps not impossible, but extremely extremely difficult, and requiring much help from tech that either doesn't exist, or doesn't facilitate with the goal in mind. And this is no surprise.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This explains natural selection, but you should explain how the wings itself had formulated and which was actually the major part for the birds to survive and reproduce and multiply?

This is where your understanding seems to fall apart then. Nothing is literally "being selected" and no one is doing the "selecting." The process by which nature "selects" lies in the idea that needs are being met as needs arise for those things to exist, based on an organisms own "fitness" for survival against its competitors. The wing itself came about in the lineage of animals due to the fact that it proved a worthy component in a huge tournament of component varying tests (prior generations). It also didn't develop in isolation, as I explained - things like bone density and metabolism were pre-requisites to flight also, and all features were winners from the start of the "process."

we should know what makes the wings to exist before being naturally selected.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. The wings didn't exist before the process of "natural selection" brought wings to the top of the "tournament". Who knows what other configurations of beings' attributes could be stable? We can't. We're not in control. No one is. The organisms themselves don't even realize the change. They simply survive, or they don't. They procreate, or they don't. Look at dinosaurs. Millions of different configurations of life have come about on the Earth. Many of them having left no fossil record of any kind. Do you know how RARE it is for a biological entity to stumble into the correct conditions for fossil-preservation as it dies? I would daresay we literally have a microscopic view of the totality of "life" that has paraded itself around on Earth's surface over time. We get almost nothing to compare and contrast. The pre-historic fossils we've found number in what? Maybe the tens or hundreds of thousands? Millions? Even at millions we're talking about an insignificant percentage of the number of total life-forms that have walked Earth. Let's posit that it's on the order of one trillion animals to one million fossils - meaning that for every trillion animals that lived, one million of them ended up as a fossil - an entirely conservative estimate. That's 0.0001 % of animals becoming fossils over time. You can't even claim you have ANY KIND of statistical significance based on a sampling like that. You've got, as I said, NOTHING. And you ask that scientists show the progression in the fossil record. We're lucky we have any fossils to compare at all.

 

[FearGod]

This is where your understanding seems to fall apart then. Nothing is literally "being selected" and no one is doing the "selecting." The process by which nature "selects" lies in the idea that needs are being met as needs arise for those things to exist, based on an organisms own "fitness" for survival against its competitors. The wing itself came about in the lineage of animals due to the fact that it proved a worthy component in a huge tournament of component varying tests (prior generations). It also didn't develop in isolation, as I explained - things like bone density and metabolism were pre-requisites to flight also, and all features were winners from the start of the "process."



This statement makes absolutely no sense. The wings didn't exist before the process of "natural selection" brought wings to the top of the "tournament". Who knows what other configurations of beings' attributes could be stable? We can't. We're not in control. No one is. The organisms themselves don't even realize the change. They simply survive, or they don't. They procreate, or they don't. Look at dinosaurs. Millions of different configurations of life have come about on the Earth. Many of them having left no fossil record of any kind. Do you know how RARE it is for a biological entity to stumble into the correct conditions for fossil-preservation as it dies? I would daresay we literally have a microscopic view of the totality of "life" that has paraded itself around on Earth's surface over time. We get almost nothing to compare and contrast. The pre-historic fossils we've found number in what? Maybe the tens or hundreds of thousands? Millions? Even at millions we're talking about an insignificant percentage of the number of total life-forms that have walked Earth. Let's posit that it's on the order of one trillion animals to one million fossils - meaning that for every trillion animals that lived, one million of them ended up as a fossil - an entirely conservative estimate. That's 0.0001 % of animals becoming fossils over time. You can't even claim you have ANY KIND of statistical significance based on a sampling like that. You've got, as I said, NOTHING. And you ask that scientists show the progression in the fossil record. We're lucky we have any fossils to compare at all.

I don't have problem with natural selection, but my point is about how mutations were successful that
made the wings to evolve, without mutations which is random, no wings have to exist.

 

[FearGod]

At this point I am starting to believe the reason behind your "missing the point" to be a willful one. No surprise, surely. It is a very prolific tactic employed by people who don't want to have to admit something that is difficult for them to admit.

I am only giving you something you take for granted - cheeseburgers, or the supposed "simplicity" of cheeseburgers, and showing you how infinitely difficult it would be to simply "create" a cheeseburger from scratch. It is, indeed, impossible for you at this time. There is no such technology to accomplish this feat. And I am juxtaposing this against your claim that scientists take for granted the "simplicity" of life. That they believe it was able to arise from non-life is a mark on the simplicity of their view of life, in your opinion, is it not? And you are saying to scientists: "If life if so easy, then why can't you create it?" So I am saying to you: "If cheeseburgers are so easy, then why can't you create one?" In both instances we obviously have naturally occurring routes to go through: "creating" another animal by procreation, or "creating" a cheeseburger through the gathering of ingredients. But you aren't asking the scientist to create another animal this way. Nor am I asking you to create another cheeseburger this way. What I am saying is that creating life from non-life is just as difficult as crafting a cheeseburger from the raw atomic materials of the universe. Perhaps not impossible, but extremely extremely difficult, and requiring much help from tech that either doesn't exist, or doesn't facilitate with the goal in mind. And this is no surprise.

The cheeseburger's ingredients are available as it's, we combine the raw materials and the final product
will be the cheeseburger, if I don't know how to make the cheeseburger then regardless of the availability
of the raw material, still making it will be a hard job, the thing is "knowing how".

We have all the raw materials that made life possible, so the thing is " we don't know how to make it"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't you think that mutations is done by randomness and don't you think that good circumstances and chances have to be a part in the process of evolution.

The chance part is just which individual will experience the mutation and when. And of course, it has to be a mutation to a germ cell or its precursor, it has to happen before the individual has reproduced for the last time, it has to happen in one of the germ cells that creates that offspring, and it has to become established in the gene pool through those offspring and their offspring.

If you or I happen to have experienced such a beneficial mutation and it appeared in one child who died at age ten of a disease or accident, that would be chance delaying evolution. The benefit would not be enjoyed by the human race until it happened again elsewhere with a little more luck.

So yes, those are all factors that can be called luck.

But the law of large numbers turns chance into near certainty at times. And the direction evolution proceeds is restricted by natural selection. Polar bears will not evolve dark colors for as long as they live in snowy climes. However, once their polar ice is gone and they are living on soil, we can expect them to change color. The dark color mutation is undoubtedly happening now, but it won't establish itself in the gene pool until it confers a competitive advantage.

So yes, while chance is involved, as with a coin flip, it's importance is diluted when considering a million coin flips. I'd bet the farm that if a fair coin is used, the number of heads and tails will both be between 49.5% and 50.5%. Eventually, a bear will be born with a better color if there is one, and if that one isn't the last common ancestor of a population of some bears, perhaps the next one will. That part is pretty predictable.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't have problem with natural selection, but my point is about how mutations were successful that
made the wings to evolve, without mutations which is random, no wings have to exist.

We're talking about gradual change toward the greatest ability to "fly" - or do as close to it. The change would have occurred SO gradually that what came first for a LONG time was not a "wing", but an appendage getting closer and closer to such. In the fossil record are lizard-like dinosaur specimens with feathers, who were, some of them, too heavy to "fly", but could likely glide and jump long distances.

Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on "Feathered dinosaurs":

British biologistThomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds were descendants of dinosaurs. He compared the skeletal structure of Compsognathus, a small theropod dinosaur, and the 'first bird' Archaeopteryx lithographica (both of which were found in the Upper Jurassic Bavarianlimestone of Solnhofen). He showed that, apart from its hands and feathers, Archaeopteryx was quite similar to Compsognathus. Thus Archaeopteryx represents a transitional fossil.

Note the words in bold, underlined and italic. "TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL."

Link to full article

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The cheeseburger's ingredients are available as it's, we combine the raw materials and the final product
will be the cheeseburger, if I don't know how to make the cheeseburger then regardless of the availability
of the raw material, still making it will be a hard job, the thing is "knowing how".

We have all the raw materials that made life possible, so the thing is " we don't know how to make it"

You still don't get it, and you keep asserting that you can make a cheeseburger from the "raw materials" presented in the form of wheat/flour, milk/cheese, meat/beef, vegetables, etc. But that's not what I am proposing. I am saying that asking someone to make "life" from the raw materials that are not "alive" is akin to asking someone to create a cheeseburger given only atoms of carbon, nitrogen, iron, sodium, etc. There are steps in the process we still don't understand (much as you would not understand how to convert raw elements into "cheese" without the help of bacteria), parts that need assembled into such intricate patterns that we can't replicate it without using reactions of the chemicals involved - letting them do it for us. Just like you have to let the cow grow "beef", or produce milk for you, or let the bacteria turn that milk into what we call cheese for you. You can't do those things yourself. No one can! Not even scientists - who you seem to think should have the "magic" necessary to do things like those.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

I believe that the scientists got it right regarding the big bang, it's the same as the toe, we know that evolution had happened but the theory is about how it happened.

Maybe there's a kind of cosmic intelligence that guides things along. I read some thing some where that said less evolution is random than we once thought it was, that things adapted to survive because they wanted to survive. Whether it's cosmic or not, there's some kind of intelligence that has guided evolution. Pantheism says that god is all or all is a manifestation of god, and some times I have to question whether there is a god or not. I have a hard time believing in an almighty creator, but some times it seems like nature had to have been awfully smart get things so sophisticated and perfect.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Watch this, no one has to agree with it, but it asks the right questions.

 

[ChristineM]

Watch this, no one has to agree with it, but it asks the right questions.

Carl Sagan died over 10 years ago, cosmology and quantum mechanics has progressed considerably since then.

He was right in when he said we don't know where the universe came from but since his death there have been many theories proposed, several of them have the advantage of being mathematically feasible and leaving observability evidence today.

 

[Tumah]

Indeed some people believe that Golem(Jewish folklore) can be made of clay.
In my youth I tried it with some of my friends, we surprisingly failed but got freaked out for a while.

Whose technique did you try?