On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

The chemicals used in the experiment unbounded faster than they bonded. In fact I think they bonded faster to water than each other.

 

Chemical evolution is not life. That is a simple fallacy of composition. Chemical evolution happens. Life could have happened with Only chemical evolution, but it is possible it would take longer without any Cosmic input.

 

Good point. I would not propose that any event was purely random.

 

Now you have a chicken or the egg problem. You need the chemicals to make the stars and the stars to create the chemicals. Which came first? Also you can't fuse pass iron without a real superheated mechanism.

 

Then what? Well, like religion, science has not gotten everything right. Mistakes do get made. The heart has a purpose other than as the house for the soul (as was once religious doctrine). Newton was only partially right about physics. However, science is designed to cause (and accept) rapid progress, including the thorough and earliest possible discarding of ideas found to be false.

No, the idea is NOT that a "designer" is needed. The central point is that theories about man are VERY different from theories about God. Theories about man can be disproven. Theories about God have NO POSSIBLE WAY of disproof by science.

Within religion you can say that mankind (in fact, the universe) didn't even exist 10,000 years ago, since god is fully capable of constructing fossils, screwing up dating methods, creating photons that appear to come from distant galaxies, etc. In fact, there is NO physical evidence to suggest god started planets in motion and then let go. He could be guiding earth around the sun right now as we speak. There is NO way to disprove that with science, as god is far more powerful than would be necessary for him to be the constant motivating factor behind ALL physical forces.

Thus, the "pen" analogy totally misses the point of the monumental divide between science and religion - a divide that should be accepted without rancor, as it is just two dramatically different ways of exploring the universe - one centered on "why" and God and one centered on "how" and evidence.

 

And that relates to my point how?

Science is only one in the toolbox to find the truth. I can't prove that there is a God but I can give evidence of a creator.

Again that's not the issue. The issue is whether there's a creator or not. If there's one then we can establish whether or not he use evolution, the Big Bang, or the new quantum evolution.

Well if want to prove the God you portray then you are correct. However we first need to establish whether a creator exists in the first place.

 

Over twenty amino acids were created where none existed before; chemical evolution.

 

Your religious (non-scientific) site uses the classic argument technique of suggesting that the hypothesis being tested was WAY more than was actually being tested. That way, the results can be pitched as underperforming.

But, actually, the test OVERperformed. It wasn't until years later that results of the experiment could be analyzed by new equipment that could detect chemistry that simply could not be detected in 1952. So, in 1952 the experiment was considered an exciting success. And, then years later it was found to have been even more successful than once thought, as the new equipment revealed the numbers and quantities of chemical compounds that were actually created.

And, the creation of that chemistry was the confirmation of the hypothesis being tested. In fact, more amino acid types were created than those commonly found in life today.

Plus, this experiment (along with similar experiments with more recent understanding of the chemical make-up of early earth) can be duplicated today.

And, more recent similar studies show that this experiment is especially adept at producing the amino acids found in the earliest life forms.

I would add that abiogenesis research is not limited to this single experiment. Other ideas concerning abiogenesis are also being explored and may in fact lead in more likely directions.

Finally, let me point out that there is no reason to propose that the odds of life are limited to odds of life on THIS planet. After all, we would necessarily be on a planet where life began. So, one must count the billions of years and billions of planets where these experiments have been given such fabulously long and varied "lab time".

 

You said "So if you didnt, then what?" concerning the discussion of the pen - implying that science might not be successful. My reply is that yes, science (and religion) can be wrong about how things work. Science addresses this by requiring the use of multiple mechanisms to identify and discard mistakes.

"Truth" has a religious definition, I'm told repeatedly. Science explores "how" things work (not "why"). These are very different targets.

No, there is NO way to provide ANY scientific evidence of God's existence (or lack thereof). Period. ID attempts to cross this barrier by creating odds on how things work - like saying, "well, if there is no god it would be this big of an accident, thus there must be a god". That fails. For one thing, there is no scientific way to assure the odds of some creation event. For another thing, we don't even know how many planets have this same experiment running or for how many years. For another, long odds happen. Sometimes you do win the lottery even when you aren't likely to. There are probably other reasons as well.

Science is carefully constructed in a way that happens to be totally useless in proving ANYTHING about God. That wasn't in any way part of the purpose, but as explained in the past it falls out of the decision that the foundation of science is evidence and the objective is "how".

 

So, I wonder what it says about the Big Bang if there are no purely random events in the universe? Interesting.

 

Well, we know very little about what has gone on outside or "before" this universe.

 

Since the key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, and the only oxygen in the system came from the water, how is this a problem?

The point of the experiment was to show that under certain conditions, inorganic molecules could combine into organic compounds. With only 5 liters and a weeks time, they produced over 20 different amino acids. Just imagine how many could form with an entire planet and millions of years to work with.

 

You don't think that the Big Bang itself could produce the hydrogen needed to make the first stars?

How superheated do you think an exploding star would be?

 

Stars came from masses of hydrogen, abundant in the early cooling following the big bang.

From there, gravity pulled together stars full of hydrogen with a force that causes a nuclear reaction that produces other elements - primarily helium, the next most simple element. From there the process continues as other elements are created by these gravity driven nuclear reactions.

The more complex elements we are composed of came from the supernovae of more ancient stars, blasted out into the cosmos and then accumulated in the formation of our own solar system.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

A factory making carbon for some distant future apple pie:
http://www.relativelyinteresting.co...2/12/Hubble-Eta-Carinae-supernova-preview.jpg

 

Thats one incredibly boring article.

Other than quantum physicist, most researchers begin their articles with a layman friendly synopsis. This article basically says that its impossible for life to come from inorganic materials and then launches into a bizarre, longwinded explanation of the authors rational.

There is no more sense refuting it than there would be in refuting a barking dog.

 

Oh C'Mon

Religion and Science agree at some point regarding, abiogenisis.​

What'samatta you?

All Power To The Tardigrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Survives the vacuum of space.
And assimilates useful genomes too.
Beware the Rise of the Tardigrades.

Moi

r > g

View attachment 41645 ​

 

As hydrogen runs out, the heat of the star can no longer oppose gravity. The result is a collapse such as a nova or supernova, with a core that sometimes then begins fusing higher elements.

The collapse can blow off material, which I think is what we see here:
http://bizlifes.net/img/2015/05/1431308120_v838-monocerotis-light-echo-hst-25th-anniversary.jpg

About 1 star per year is formed in our galaxy. Over the whole observable universe, there are about 275 million stars per day being born and probably a similar number going nova or otherwise dying.

Here's an area where there is relatively frequent star birth taking place:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...tion_2014_HST_WFC3-UVIS_full-res_denoised.jpg

This location is about 6 or 7 thousand light years away. Our Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter, so this location is within our galaxy. If you look at the very top of the columns you will see tiny "horns" sticking out of the cloud. Our solar system is way smaller than the very tips of these horns.

 

So what you're really saying is that you can't refute any of it. Got it. Next.

 

To boil it down its the natural/supernatural creation argument reframed. There is nothing new in the article you posted, its just a meaninglessly abstruse version of it.

Logically its impossible to prove anything is impossible, you can only prove things varying degrees of likely or improbable. We know life exist and we know it started at some point. How it started is a compelling question that has not been fully answered.

Your article would imply that research into this is pointless, and I assume faith in a higher power would be more reasonable. I personally find that stance ignorant.

Refuted. Happy?

 

That's equivalent to getting letters in the alphabet by dropping toothpicks when the end goal is to create all of Shakespeare's plays.

 

Wait, what? Where?

Still overlooking the fact that the mixture was/is more than 90% toxic to life, it can't form with or without oxygen in nature, unnaturally guarding the ooze to keep it from being zapped again, and that the amino acids unbounded in water much faster than they bound.

See above.

Not dependably.

So we made a few letters in the alphabet in a sterilized and controlled environment by chance. So what? You're still a long ways from creating one book, let alone the library of congress.

You realize that you only moved the problem somewhere else right?

 

Ok.

Ok.

Sure there's evidence for a creator. Simple logic indicates it. If you can pick up an arrowhead and come to the conclusion that someone created it, how much more for a complex mechanism of information transfer such as the DNA?

Why is it totally useless to prove anything about God?

 

Actually they unbound in water much faster than they bound. What's the problem is? It's equivalent to filling a tub that's leaking faster than its filling.

Its equivant to dropping toothpicks on the groung and creating a few letters. If you do it for millions of years would you come up with the ten word sentence if "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"?

 

Where did that came from? If you say energy then where did that came from?

So you have to lose a star to create the elements? I don't deny that can happen (well actually we see elements decay as far as I know) but how many you have to lose?

 

Well any kind of life carbon based, energy based or silicon based would be likely extremely rare in the universe there is likely a window when life is possible to begun and evolve a "sweet spot" and then the odds of highly intelligent life would be even more rare. A great white shark is highly complex and successful but not intelligent like some of our own ancestors were like Neanderthals. And we are far more advanced than they were. The Drake Equation is likely wrong. However Abiogenesis is likely one of the rarest events in our universe and even then rarely successful leading to a chain of life.

Rare doesn't mean impossible just perhaps one per trillion planets able to support life, maybe one or two species per galaxy might advance to technological intelligence at any level if you include all possibilities even intelligent energy forms.