The Origin of Life

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since no one except God and the angels was present at creation, all views on the origin of the universe and life must be based ultimately on faith rather than upon direct observation. Faith is the perception of reality based on the authority or veracity of God or someone else. After examing the evidence marshaled by evolutionists, one scientist oberves t ...[text shortened]... ith in man's speculative theories that exclude God. But either way, we exercise faith.

Your opening clause destroys the whole post. Let me show you another example.

Since Thomas Edison was a great US President, we should name a mountain after him.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I do not wish that the Atheists start smacking each other over this one.

I quote Starrman: [b]"Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life."


http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37005&page=21

If that is the case for all the other A ...[text shortened]... uld like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?[/b]

Here is what I've written on abiogenesis in the past:

The Earth probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago. It was a hot, inorganic ball of rock with oceans and an atmosphere containing nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen atoms in some gaseous form or another, but no oxygen gas (O2). I don't really know what molecules these atoms were organized into, but it doesn't really matter. When gasses of made up of these elements are exposed to lightning, ultraviolet light or heat, simple organic molecules will form, as demonstrated by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953, and I believe others since.

Amino acids, short proteins, nucleotides, ATP (and probably other nucleoside triphosphates), and other molecules characteristic of living things are some of the organic molecules that have been observed to form in laboratory recreations of these conditions. In addition, we know from present day meteorites that such meteorites often cary such simple organic molecules with them. Such molecules are vulnerable to uv radiation exposure from the sun (no ozone layer yet) but some places, like tidal pools hidden under rocky shelfs, would be shielded from uv exposure.

Some such pools would have had ocean water splashing into them during high tide, bringing with it the organic molecules in it, and during low tide some of the water in the pool might have evaporated. By this or some other mechanism pools of water sheltered from uv radiation would become highly enriched in the organic molecules. As there was not yet any life and no free oxygen, these molecules had no environmental influences that would break them down.

When organic molecules like these are placed in concentrated enough solutions, they spontaneously react to form more complex organic molecules, such as RNA.

RNA molecules with all kinds of random sequences would spontaneously form. Now we know that RNA, like proteins, folds into specific configurations depending on the sequence of bases it is made up of. Sometimes the folded RNA is catalytic; that is, it makes an enzyme. Such RNA enzymes are called ribozymes.

Now RNA, like DNA, already has an obvious mechanism by which it could replicate itself. This is the point at which substances began to catalyze the synthesis of smaller molecules into copies of themselves; that is, they reproduced. Being genetic material with no proofreading systems with the potential to be exposed to uv light, such RNA chains began to mutate into chains with slightly different base sequences. Any of these which folded into enzymes that catalyzed their own reproduction would begin to out compete the other RNA chains in terms of reproduction and using up the raw materials for reproduction. The process of evolution has begun, even before life existed.

Now, it's been shown that amphipathic molecules like phospholipids will tend to aggregate and form one of three different formations depending on the conditions; micelles, solid molecular sized balls of phospholipid molecules, a bilayer, or flat sheet (which would need to be anchored on the edges away from water), or a combination of the two, a vesicle. A vesicle is lipid bilayer bent into a spherical shape and closed upon itself. Such vesicles trap water and the contents of water in their cavities when they form. Small molecules can pass through the phospholipid bilayers of such vesicles far more easily than larger molecules.

Some of these vesicles probably formed around RNA which was already evolved into a form that catalyzed it's own reproduction quite effectively. Such RNA still had access to the small molecules it needed as raw material for self reproduction, but large molecules that might damage it or otherwise interfere were kept out. The RNA would reproduce and reproduce, and the new ribozymes wouldn't be able to get out of the vesicle. Maybe more than one kind of self replicating RNA would get trapped inside the vesicle and begin to reproduce.

This stage of prebiotic evolution is known as the protocell. Such protocells could collect more and more phospholipid molecules and keep reproducing the RNA inside, causing the protocell to grow.

At this point, a number of the characteristics of life have come into being. The protocell has begun to aquire and use materials and energy from it's environment and to convert them into different forms. It was growing. It had the capacity to evolve. And, once these things grew big enough, and possibly with the help of the ribozymes inside, they would divide. This is reproduction of the entire protocell.

Now, sometimes more than one molecule of RNA would get trapped inside and begin to self-replicate; sometimes some copies of the RNA inside the protocell would mutate into different forms. In this way different enzymes would come into being, providing a more varied environment inside the protocell. Sometimes these various chains of RNA would begin to specialize into symbiotic relationships, helping one another reproduce and do other things.

As you can see, it makes perfect sense based on much experiment that such a pattern of change from inorganic, simple molecules to complexity in the form of protocells could plausibly come into being. Any entropy lessened in the formation and reproduction of these ordered objects would be compensated for by breakup of nucleoside triphosphates. This effectively changes sunlight or other ordered forms of energy to heat, which I think counts as increased entropy. So, unlike what some creationists suggest, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not broken by this proposed mechanism.

Some of these ribozymes would begin to assemble amino acids into short chains through catalysis of dehydration reactions. Once proteins were being formed, similar evolution would produce protein catalysts or enzymes. At some point some RNA would catalyze the formation of the more stable DNA molecules, which would take over as the genetic material of these protocells.

At this point we pretty much have a primitive cell, or something close to it. Life is a poorly defined word, so there isn't any exact moment at which one could say it has been crossed. It's more of a long process full of small changes that caused the protocell - not alive - to the cell - alive. The cell then began to evolve, but that's beyond the scope of the question asked here.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20290

Here's some other good articles which discuss abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)#Origins_of_cells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something gr ...[text shortened]... atural to it.
This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
This uncaused cause is God.[/b]

There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.

This implies that events must occur within the universe. If so, the universe could not have been caused; it had to exist before any causes did.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps, but the faith in science is based upon first hand evidence. It follows logically, plainly, and with no requirement for any process that cannot be directly observed nowadays. Faith in God requires (a) belief in the unobservable, (b) an abandonment of logic (how else can one account for a 3.6 million year old human skeleton on a 10,000 year old earth?) and (c) trust in a single second hand (at best) source.

I'm generally on the side of the scientists, but I think with this one

the idea of life beginning spontaneously is a "matter of faith on the part of the biologist."

it's a bit trickier. Most science, you don't have to have faith in. You can repeat the experiment and see if you get the same result.
Identifying how and when the Earth changed from a lifeless ball of rock and "stuff" to a planet with life isn't going to be easy.
Most likely life emerged and became extinct many times and in many different places before it became established for a long period.

Haven't there been any experiments that show some form of life emerges from a chemical soup if you dump energy into it (sunlight, radiation, lightning, whatever)

And scientists pretty much have theories rather than beliefs.
i.e this is how we think it works
when more evidence turns up, the theories change

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Go look the word 'infinite' up.

Then look up 'time'.

You'll come, after a while, to realise that time is a property of the universe. The universe has existed for all time, because time only exists within the universe. Then you'll realise your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

The post you quoted attacks the ridiculous idea that the universe is infinite, one that is employed when other options are logically eliminated.
As the universe was created, so was time.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If so, the universe could not have been caused

You jump to a conclusion with a slight gap.

Originally posted by telerion
Your opening clause destroys the whole post. Let me show you another example.

Since Thomas Edison was a great US President, we should name a mountain after him.

And you likely stopped reading there. Too bad you don't apply your laser-like discernment and analysis to other faith-based propositions.

Originally posted by telerion
TOE: creation? formation? whatever.

In the following "created" means "life was planned and built from matter by some personal agent(s) either through a process or immediately." "Formed" means "arising from matter without some personal agent(s) planning or construction."

where was life created or formed?
If formed: the universe.
If created: I ...[text shortened]... me one or some ones. who? I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.

If, seems to make me think all views on this are, faith.
When I say all views, I mean all views too, from those inside
of science on. If we don't know, pick a belief.
Kelly

Originally posted by David C
Wish I could help. Your question is loaded. "Who do you think did it" assumes that a) we were 'created' and b) there was a 'creator'. Most non-theists will likely refrain from engaging such a question. Just remember this: The Sun probably provided the necessary conditions for "abiogenesis" to occur.

It may be, believed that the Sun could have, but such is faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps, but the faith in science is based upon first hand evidence. It follows logically, plainly, and with no requirement for any process that cannot be directly observed nowadays. Faith in God requires (a) belief in the unobservable, (b) an abandonment of logic (how else can one account for a 3.6 million year old human skeleton on a 10,000 year old earth?) and (c) trust in a single second hand (at best) source.

If you telling me you have monitored iron over several billion years
I can say you can use iron as a measuring stick for age. If not it
isn't first hand, but guess work when trying to assume what things
mean. Faith, assumptions, hope, and beliefs all people are using
it to build their world views without exception.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If, seems to make me think all views on this are, faith.
When I say all views, I mean all views too, from those inside
of science on. If we don't know, pick a belief.
Kelly

If we don't know, pick a belief.
Kelly

If I did such a thing, then it would be faith. From my post, I choose to stick with I don't know, hence all the conditional statements. I feel it would be dishonest to myself and others to do anything else.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And you likely stopped reading there. Too bad you don't apply your laser-like discernment and analysis to other faith-based propositions.

I did read on. Unfortunately, a house built on a shaky foundation . . .

Edit: I don't need to apply any lasers. I just let your own words do all the work.

Originally posted by telerion
I did read on. Unfortunately, a house built on a shaky foundation . . .

Edit: I don't need to apply any lasers. I just let your own words do all the work.

Great charge. Based on what, it's hard to imagine, but great charge.
For some odd reason, wholly unknown by you, you continue to attack everything but the salient point of any assertion or argument put forth.
Lacking a rational line of reason, you are left to protect your own indefensible position with whatever club or rock you find nearby. Aren't able to refute the fact that all accounts of the beginning are necessarily faith-based? Why, attack the ones you disagree with, of course.
Can't figure out a logic lapse in the attributes of God? Dismiss God (with baseless frivolities) altogether, and =poof= it all goes away.

The fact remains, until one determines to be a student of truth--- no matter where the truth leads--- one will remain in ignorance of varying degrees. Don't be a truthaphobe.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here is what I've written on abiogenesis in the past:

The Earth probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago. It was a hot, inorganic ball of rock with oceans and an atmosphere containing nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen atoms in some gaseous form or another, but no oxygen gas (O2). I don't really know what molecules these atoms were organized int iki/Cell_(biology)#Origins_of_cells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life[/i]

And there is not an element of faith required to believe this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you telling me you have monitored iron over several billion years
I can say you can use iron as a measuring stick for age. If not it
isn't first hand, but guess work when trying to assume what things
mean. Faith, assumptions, hope, and beliefs all people are using
it to build their world views without exception.
Kelly

No. I appreciate that it's quite technical. The oxidation state of Iron tells you whether or not there was free oxygen in the environment. Age is determined using Strontium dating normally, although other methods have been used on diverse samples from a range of environments. We make assumptions in science, but those assumptions are normally based on good scientific evidence.