Life from a petri-dish

I have often seen stated in these forums that no scientist has ever created life in the Lab and this somehow disproves or sheds doubt on the Theory of Evolution.
This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Theory.
First of all the petri-dish that got life going was the whole earth and a lot of time (millions of years). There is no way to recreate those circumstances in the lab.
Secondly there is the assumption that life must have gone from zero to full scale cellular life in an instant. There are many self reproducing things other than cells (for example viruses, RNA, DNA etc) and the assumption that these could not have evolved first and then got more complex is unfounded.
Thirdly there is a belief that something as complex as a self reproducing pattern is somehow incapable mathematically of coming about without some external inteligence. To answer this please have a look at what is known as "John Conways game of Life". This shows quite clearly that with very simple rules and a large enough "soup" of random stuff self reproducting patterns can most definately occur without outside intervention.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have often seen stated in these forums that no scientist has ever created life in the Lab and this somehow disproves or sheds doubt on the Theory of Evolution.
This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Theory.
First of all the petri-dish that got life going was the whole earth and a lot of time (millions of years). There is no way to recreate those c ...[text shortened]... random stuff self reproducting patterns can most definately occur without outside intervention.

How do you cross the hickup that DNA can currently only be created in a DNA controlled environment?

Originally posted by Halitose
How do you cross the hickup that DNA can currently only be created in a DNA controlled environment?

Please explain furthur.
I am not aware of any hickups. I hope you realise that DNA does not equal life.

While the problems with dead chemicals creating life are numerous, the most interesting one (for me) is the atmospheric conditions.

Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21% ) and nitrogen (78% ). The presence of oxygen in a primordial atmosphere creates a problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

There is of course the theory of a reducing atmosphere, though I find this to be equally problematic. If you consider the need for the ozone layer (O3), the contradiction is apparent. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down, thusly preventing life; But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting.

Regardless, the reducing atmosphere theory is just that.....a theory, and one which lacks physical evidence (as far as I know). To the converse, there is geological evidence which suggests an oxidizing atmosphere, such as the precipitation of limestone, the oxidation of iron in early rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please explain furthur.
I am not aware of any hickups. I hope you realise that DNA does not equal life.

I hope you realise that DNA does not equal life.

Exactly. It is also just a mumbo-jumbo of nucleic acid combinations without some form of intelligence to decipher it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please explain furthur.
I am not aware of any hickups. I hope you realise that DNA does not equal life.

Please explain furthur.

The only way DNA is 'created' is within a DNA controlled cell. A lovely circle for which I see no beginning.

Originally posted by Halitose
Exactly. It is also just a mumbo-jumbo of nucleic acid combinations without some form of intelligence to decipher it.

The only way DNA is 'created' is within a DNA controlled cell. A lovely circle for which I see no beginning.

So you believe that God is deciphering DNA in every living Cell all the time and without him life comes to a stop ? Interesting.

I repeat DNA is not equal to life nor is it a requirement for life. Of course the definition of the word life is debatable, but nevertheless there are very simple things like Viruses and structures within the cell which reproduce without DNA. The assumption that DNA was the start of life is WRONG.
The assumption that the ONLY way DNA can be created is by copying other DNA is WRONG.

The whole point of the Theory of Evolution is that greater complexity can and does arise from simple reproducing things and that it is possible for it to occur without a greater intelligence. If the complexity of a human being can arise from a single cell then why cant a single cell arise from less complex chemical reactions ?
All that is really required is a chemical capable of reproducing itself while allowing some basic variation.

The only arguement I have seen against it so far is that it doesnt make "logical sense". But intuitive logic depends on the individual and varies widely according to experience.

Originally posted by Halitose
A lovely circle for which I see no beginning.

Wear that title proudly, Hal....

Originally posted by twhitehead
.......The only arguement I have seen against it so far is that it doesnt make "logical sense".......

......ahem.....

Originally posted by Omnislash
While the problems with dead chemicals creating life are numerous, the most interesting one (for me) is the atmospheric conditions.

Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21% ) and nitrogen (78% ). The presence of oxygen in a primordial atmosphere creates a problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there woul ...[text shortened]... rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

Actually, based upon the chemical composition of old rocks we can pretty much say that there was probably relatively little oxygen in the early atmosphere. All oxygen in the atmosphere was 'liberated' from water during photosynthesis.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, based upon the chemical composition of old rocks we can pretty much say that there was probably relatively little oxygen in the early atmosphere. All oxygen in the atmosphere was 'liberated' from water during photosynthesis.

So no O3?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you believe that God is deciphering DNA in every living Cell all the time and without him life comes to a stop ? Interesting.

I repeat DNA is not equal to life nor is it a requirement for life. Of course the definition of the word life is debatable, but nevertheless there are very simple things like Viruses and structures within the cell which repro ...[text shortened]... ense". But intuitive logic depends on the individual and varies widely according to experience.

As I pointed out in another thread, viruses need a host to reproduce, so you are still stuck.

I never asserted that God is deciphering DNA, a shameless strawman and red herring on your part. The cell itself deciphers the DNA, hence you need an already functioning cell.

The assumption that the ONLY way DNA can be created is by copying other DNA is WRONG.

This is no assumption, this is the way nature functions at the moment. I can point you to any cell - plant or animal, and that is what you would observe. If you want to contend to the contrary, please, be my guest, but I request substantial proof.

If the complexity of a human being can arise from a single cell then why cant a single cell arise from less complex chemical reactions ?

This is circular reasoning - where, pray, has something been conclusively proven to become more complex?

All that is really required is a chemical capable of reproducing itself while allowing some basic variation.

Well great, problem solved; what/where is this chemical capable of reproducing itself, and where did it come from?

Originally posted by Omnislash
So no O3?

Indeed. That's why life evolved in the oceans - water is very effective at absorbing UV-B. About 90% of solar UV-B can be absorbed by the top 2 cm of the water column.

Originally posted by Halitose
As I pointed out in another thread, viruses need a host to reproduce, so you are still stuck.

I never asserted that God is deciphering DNA, a shameless strawman and red herring on your part. The cell itself deciphers the DNA, hence you need an already functioning cell.

[b]The assumption that the ONLY way DNA can be created is by copying other DNA is ...[text shortened]... m solved; what/where is this chemical capable of reproducing itself, and where did it come from?

I'll deal with this tomorrow. Too tired now.

Originally posted by Halitose

As I pointed out in another thread, viruses need a host to reproduce, so you are still stuck.
The nevertheless reproduce and evolve. Are they alive ?

I never asserted that God is deciphering DNA, a shameless strawman and red herring on your part. The cell itself deciphers the DNA, hence you need an already functioning cell.

You stated "....some form of intelligence to decipher it." Maybe I dont understand what you mean by intelligence. In another thread someone implied that gravity was intelligence, you are proposing that a cell is intelligent but DNA isnt? Maybe we need a proper definition of intelligence.

The assumption that the ONLY way DNA can be created is by copying other DNA is WRONG.

This is no assumption, this is the way nature functions at the moment. I can point you to any cell - plant or animal, and that is what you would observe. If you want to contend to the contrary, please, be my guest, but I request substantial proof.

First of all you have restricted your view to plants and animals which we know use DNA as a central part of thier mechanisms. However we know that even the DNA in plants and animals is continuously changing, with bits being inserted, removed, rearranged etc all the time. Many of the added bits do not originate as other DNA but come from viruses etc. In fact a GM crop is often created by transfering genes via viruses. Surely it would be possible for a few viruses to get together and create a brand new strand of DNA ?

This is circular reasoning - where, pray, has something been conclusively proven to become more complex?

I see the conclusive proof all around me in the plants and animals I see.