The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Originally posted by finnegan
It has been. I gave you a link to excellent and very succinct scientific evidence which you can read for yourself. It would take a few minutes at most.

We also know that life emerged when the Earth was still relatively young, indicating that there was not too much difficult in acheving this. By examining the geological records we can identify when li ...[text shortened]... s yet.

Your utter refusal to enter into rational debate of this evidence is characteristic.

To be fair we have a lot of information already about other planets, how they form, what they are made of, how they have changed over time.

For example we can see a case study of runaway greenhouse gases on the planet Venus. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html

We know Mars was formed at the same time as Earth and from much the same materials.

We have data from all the planets of our solar system from our space flight programme.

We are accumulating information about planets around other stars.

How much evidence will ever be sufficient? The data is coming thick and fast and it is not looking good for the childish misinterpretation of Genesis that is claimed to support Creationism.

Originally posted by finnegan
It has been. I gave you a link to excellent and very succinct scientific evidence which you can read for yourself. It would take a few minutes at most.

We also know that life emerged when the Earth was still relatively young, indicating that there was not too much difficult in acheving this. By examining the geological records we can identify when li ...[text shortened]... s yet.

Your utter refusal to enter into rational debate of this evidence is characteristic.

Surely you should know better than to refer to the Urey-Miller experiment?

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Surely you should know better than to refer to the Urey-Miller experiment?

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

My source does indeed refer to Urey Miller - do you think that seminal experiment should be ignored and not mentioned? Why then is it that your creationist source spends a lot of its time referring to Ulrey Miller and seems to me to rely on that flawed experiment far more than any biologist does, while failing to give a competent account of the relevant science.

The limitiations of the Urey Miller experiement are explicitly identified in the source I gave you

However, it is now thought that the atmosphere of the early earth was not rich in methane and ammonia — essential ingredients in Miller's experiments.

It's importance was that it was the first of its kind and it established the viability of the thesis that life (or in this specific experiment, the precursors of life) can emerge from "abiotic" or non living chemical processes. It is quite proper to continue to reference that seminal work, while at the same time acknowledging its flaws and moving on to later work. A lot more work has taken place since then and to dispute every claim in your source would be beyond my claims to expertise. That said, I suspect that defending those claims in detail would also be beyond your scientific training. I leave the scientists on this forum to pursue the detailed stuff while remaining satisfied that there is enough in my source to satisfy any reasonable person of the viability of abiogenesis.

In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:
17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.
But abiotic synthesis of ribose — and thus of nucleotides — has been much more difficult.
However, success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth was reported in the 14 May 2009 issue of Nature.
And in 2015, chemists in Cambridge England led by John Sutherland reported that they had been able to synthesize precursors of 12 of the 20 amino acids and two (of the four) ribonucleotides used by life as well as glycerol-1-phosphate, a precursor of lipids. They created all of these molecules using only hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) irradiated with ultraviolet light in the presence of mineral catalysts.

My source goes on to list work on such problems as the development of a single cell and the development of multi-cellular organisms. It makes no excessive or unrealistic claims and does not engage in the bombastic, grandiose language of the Creationists.

For my purposes and I suspect for most people, the issue is not to set out a detailed description of the precise pathway by which life was formed, but rather to establish the principle that it is possible for life to form through abiotic chemical processes and that principle is, in my view, beyond dispute. Yes it is possible. No, I am not driven by the lack of a youtube video of the events taking place in real time to choose a belief in creationism which is frankly not even based on anything in the bible whatever, but based on the fantastic pseudo science of a bunch of charlatans.

Originally posted by finnegan
My source does indeed refer to Urey Miller - do you think that seminal experiment should be ignored and not mentioned? Why then is it that your creationist source spends a lot of its time referring to Ulrey Miller and seems to me to rely on that flawed experiment far more than any biologist does, while failing to give a competent account of the relevant sci ...[text shortened]... thing in the bible whatever, but based on the fantastic pseudo science of a bunch of charlatans.

I agree it may be possible with intelligent intervention, but don't see how it could happen without it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
..., but I don't see how ....

What exactly is your specialist field? Chemistry? Biochemistry? Microbiology?

Because you not seeing how something could work is not a compelling argument against anything.

(I suspect you don't know how Aspirin works, microwave ovens, aeroplanes or
the human eye, but would not use that as evidence against their non-existence)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What exactly is your specialist field? Chemistry? Biochemistry? Microbiology?

Because you not seeing how something could work is not a compelling argument against anything.

(I suspect you don't know how Aspirin works, microwave ovens, aeroplanes or
the human eye, but would not use that as evidence against their non-existence)

Actually I majored in Chemistry and Physics but that is beside the point.

Scientists are not trying to “reproduce the NATURAL conditions that existed” long ago in their labs. That would be impossible.

What they’re trying to do is manufacture artificial life in order to discover how it may have happened by purely naturalistic causes. And anything they produce will by definition have been intelligently designed.

With their limited intelligence they are failing to do so. Hence my belief that life could only arise from a greater source of intelligence than man possesses.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Actually I majored in Chemistry and Physics but that is beside the point.

Then you must have sucked at those subjects.
That said, doing an undergrad degree in physics and chemistry is no sort of preparation* for understanding the intricacies
of biology. The history of non-biologists butting their noses into biology and getting it hopelessly wrong is long and sordid.

*particularly seeing as you clearly seem to reject the basic premises of the workings of science.

Scientists are not trying to “reproduce the NATURAL conditions that existed” long ago in their labs. That would be impossible.

Um, bull-excrement. They very much are trying [and succeeding] to replicate the 'natural' conditions that existed long ago
and it's most certainly not impossible.

What they’re trying to do is manufacture artificial life in order to discover how it may have happened by purely naturalistic causes. And anything they produce will by definition have been intelligently designed.

No, it will not have been 'intelligently designed'. Bunging a whole bunch of chemicals together in a soup and watching
what happens is no sort of design intelligent or otherwise.
We do do 'intelligent design' where people very deliberately manipulate DNA to construct very specifically designed
organisms [with increasing power as our knowledge increases] and it's a totally different process.

With their limited intelligence they are failing to do so. Hence my belief that life could only arise from a greater source of intelligence than man possesses.

You really need to learn the laws of logic.
There was a time when we couldn't make heavier than air flying machines, did that mean that it was impossible for us
to do so? Or that heavier than air creatures couldn't have formed naturally?

Of course not.

We are more than capable of creating life from scratch given enough knowledge, knowledge we are rapidly gaining.
But whether we are or not, says nothing about whether life can evolve [and/or come into existence] without any
intelligent design or intervention.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then you must have sucked at those subjects.
That said, doing an undergrad degree in physics and chemistry is no sort of preparation* for understanding the intricacies
of biology. The history of non-biologists butting their noses into biology and getting it hopelessly wrong is long and sordid.

*particularly seeing as you clearly seem to reject the ...[text shortened]... r life can evolve [and/or come into existence] without any
intelligent design or intervention.

That said, doing an undergrad degree in physics and chemistry is no sort of preparation* for understanding the intricacies of biology.

LOL so only people with a PhD in Biology can understand the intricacies of Biology? Do you have a PhD in Biology? Would you accept someone's opinion about the matter if they have a PhD in Biology? Or would you say their opinions are horse excrement because you know best?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
LOL so only people with a PhD in Biology can understand the intricacies of Biology? Do you have a PhD in Biology? Would you accept someone's opinion about the matter if they have a PhD in Biology? Or would you say their opinions are horse excrement because you know best?

No, you have misunderstood. I understand Biology reasonably well without any significant formal qualifications in it. What he is saying is that an undergrad degree in physics and chemistry isn't enough to claim to guarantee you will understand biology or be an authority on biology. It doesn't prevent you understanding biology, nor does it significantly aid you. So when you make an unsupported claim about biology, we can safely ignore it as just that, an unsupported claim. And when you make an argument from ignorance we can safely assume that your ignorance is to blame.
If on the other hand you can make a well reasoned argument using supporting facts that we either agree on or have good references then we must take you seriously. So far you have not done so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you have misunderstood. I understand Biology reasonably well without any significant formal qualifications in it. What he is saying is that an undergrad degree in physics and chemistry isn't enough to claim to guarantee you will understand biology or be an authority on biology. It doesn't prevent you understanding biology, nor does it significantly ai ...[text shortened]... r agree on or have good references then we must take you seriously. So far you have not done so.

So with your supreme understanding of Biology tell me which of the following 5 statements you disagree with and why:

1. Experiments have proven that very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions.

2. These separate acids are nowhere near sufficient to create a living cell.

3. The conditions which create these acids would not only kill any such cell as soon as it was formed, but are also unlikely to have ever actually existed at any time in earth’s history.

4. Any evolutionary theory that seems to suggest how ultra-simple life could have developed from a single newly formed cell has no answer for how that cell could have been formed in the first place.

5. There is no “prototype first cell.” Science has never even come close to producing a self-sustaining living cell that could have been produced by, or survived in, the conditions needed to form its components.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So with your supreme understanding of Biology tell me which of the following 5 statements you disagree with and why:

I clearly stated that my understanding of biology is not 'supreme'. To suggest otherwise makes you dishonest.

1. Experiments have proven that very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions.
I have not looked into it. Other posters have suggested that that is the case, but I have not verified it. That doesn't require biological knowledge however, it only requires knowledge of how to use Google.

2. These separate acids are nowhere near sufficient to create a living cell.
I believe a few other molecules used in the cell wall are also required, but not much more.

3. The conditions which create these acids would not only kill any such cell as soon as it was formed, but are also unlikely to have ever actually existed at any time in earth’s history.
I do not know that to be the case. But again, this has nothing to do with knowledge of biology, but rather to do with looking up the relevant experiments.

4. Any evolutionary theory that seems to suggest how ultra-simple life could have developed from a single newly formed cell has no answer for how that cell could have been formed in the first place.
That I disagree with. I see no logical reason why that would be the case.

5. There is no “prototype first cell.” Science has never even come close to producing a self-sustaining living cell that could have been produced by, or survived in, the conditions needed to form its components.
As far as I know, yes (in terms of abiogenesis experiments). I am sure scientists have created living things by more deliberate means.

Do you have a point to make?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So with your supreme understanding of Biology tell me which of the following 5 statements you disagree with and why:

1. Experiments have proven that very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions.

2. These separate acids are nowhere near sufficient to create a living cell.

3. The conditions which create these acids would not o ...[text shortened]... that could have been produced by, or survived in, the conditions needed to form its components.

I wonder which of the following points are in serious (ie informed) dispute here? The academic sources are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

1. Earth formed 4,600 million years ago.
2. "Remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."[Notice we do not yet care how it got there, just that it did get there]
3. 3,900 million to 2,500 million years ago Cells resembling prokaryotes appear.[16] These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose and store it in the chemical bonds of ATP. Glycolysis (and ATP) continue to be used in almost all organisms, unchanged, to this day.

You can, if you wish, proceed all the way along the timeline of evolution at the site given above but it is not relevant to this argument.

Clearly, simple life forms did in fact turn up on earth and they can be dated scientifically to 4.1 billion years ago, a mere 400 million years after the Earth was formed. It follows that this was possible - because it happened and we can show that it happened. This happened a vast amount of time earlier than more complex forms of life arose.

Now which verse in Genesis says that in the beginning, God made simple life forms? I am an expert. The answer is "none." So if you rely on that source, you would never so much as imagine how things happened. Yet we know this did happen and in the stated timescales.

Telling us that it is impossible flies in the face of the evidence that it happened. Even if we never manage to figure out the detailed chemisty of this event, we know that it did in fact happen because we have found evidence of the results.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I clearly stated that my understanding of biology is not 'supreme'. To suggest otherwise makes you dishonest.

[b]1. Experiments have proven that very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions.
I have not looked into it. Other posters have suggested that that is the case, but I have not verified it. That doesn't require biological ...[text shortened]... scientists have created living things by more deliberate means.

Do you have a point to make?[/b]

I have not looked into it. Other posters have suggested that that is the case, but I have not verified it.

But still you believe abiogenesis is a fact?

I believe a few other molecules used in the cell wall are also required, but not much more.

What other molecules? So why do you still believe abiogenesis is in fact possible without them?

I do not know that to be the case. But again, this has nothing to do with knowledge of biology, but rather to do with looking up the relevant experiments.

I do believe that is the case though.

That I disagree with. I see no logical reason why that would be the case.

So evolution does not need a starting point?

As far as I know, yes (in terms of abiogenesis experiments). I am sure scientists have created living things by more deliberate means.

Wow. Such as?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But still you believe abiogenesis is a fact?

Yes. I believe that based on the evidence available, not because of some experiments done to try to understand it better.

What other molecules?
Look it up. Whatever makes up the cell wall. Cell walls are not coded for in DNA, they are self replicating.

So why do you still believe abiogenesis is in fact possible without them?
I never said that.

I do believe that is the case though.
Why? For religious reasons, or because you actually did some research into it?

So evolution does not need a starting point?
If course it does. You're not making any sense. The starting point doesn't need to be part of a theory of evolution however. But what I said was that it could be included in a theory of evolution if someone wanted to - contrary to the claim I was responding to.

Wow. Such as?
I am sure you have been presented with references already. Did you not read them?
You could start here:
http://www.rdmag.com/articles/2016/03/scientists-create-revolutionary-synthetic-life-form

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. I believe that based on the evidence available, not because of some experiments done to try to understand it better.

[b]What other molecules?
Look it up. Whatever makes up the cell wall. Cell walls are not coded for in DNA, they are self replicating.

So why do you still believe abiogenesis is in fact possible without them?
I never ...[text shortened]... here:
http://www.rdmag.com/articles/2016/03/scientists-create-revolutionary-synthetic-life-form[/b]

Yes. I believe that based on the evidence available, not because of some experiments done to try to understand it better.

Do you disagree that the evidence that you accept actually builds a strong case for intelligent intervention?

Look it up. Whatever makes up the cell wall. Cell walls are not coded for in DNA, they are self replicating.

Look it up, so you can't tell me?

I am sure you have been presented with references already. Did you not read them?
You could start here:
http://www.rdmag.com/articles/2016/03/scientists-create-revolutionary-synthetic-life-form

Yes I did. Did you know the following?

Venter’s work was an amazing scientific achievement, the result of years of research and much ingenuity. There were at least three problems he had to solve to make his synthetic life; these are listed here, alongside his solutions:

Operating machinery: using an already existing cell
Software: obtaining the information of an already existing cell, modifying it, and synthesizing DNA with this information.
Joining up this molecule despite the chemical and physical difficulties. Venter used proteins from yeast to help.

This builds a strong case for creation by the way.