The Origin of Life

[Jose]

The abiogenesis story nonetheless follows the same rules as the rest of science. We gather information--data, observations, etc--from the world. We then develop models to explain the observations. The rules are that we can't invent things for which there are no data. ... If we stick with facts--hard evidence from geochemistry and from experimental chemistry--we're kinda stuck with current ideas for the origin of life. We may be dissatisfied that we don't have a complete story yet, but that doesn't justify the response that so many people have: throw out everything we know, in favor of magical stories that emerged in a pre-scientific age.

But abiogenesis does exactly that. It invents a mechanism that explains the creation of life to fit with the theory of cosmogenesis even though there is absolutely no data to support it and ignores the masses of data that debunk it. ... Hard evidence from intensive experimentation suggests that life does not originate in this way at all. There is no evidence that biological/living processes can evolve from non-living self replicating molecules and all the data suggests that they do not. By all means believe it if you must but it isn't science.

The above exchange illustrates the basic issue. The Origin-of-Life researchers have lots of data and lots of ideas, but no absolute proof of a particular mechanism by which life certainly arose from plain old chemistry. The anti-evolution folks insist that the physical origin of life (as opposed to special creation) is hogwash, a flight of fancy for which there are no facts. They use this to claim that evolution is impossible, although "evolution" is what life does after it exists, not before.

Questions for Debate

1. Are there data and ideas? Are they valid? What is the current status of Origin-of-Life research?
2. What, if anything, has been debunked?
3. Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is impossible until it's been re-constructed in the lab, with a complete description of every step? We don't require this level of certainty for medical research; why require it for this?

__________________
Use a small broom for the corners.

[achilles12604]

achilles12604

The point is that the Second Law applies only to closed systemsEarth is not a closed system.

The Second Law only requires that the total entropy increase. It does not rule out local DECREASES in entropy, just that the whole system entropy increases. Thus a plant takes energy and chemicals in and creates complex sugars, but the sun burned huge amounts of hydrogen in that period of time, more than "paying" for the decrease in entropy that all life is.

In the case of a dead body for example, a body's decay into the soil around it, would certainly seem to be an example of going from complex to simple would it not? Lets say your dog, (which was a living breathing, playing and somewhat intelligent creature) dies and is buried. 15 years later that spot is dug up and nothing of substance is left. It has totally returned to the soil. Since a living creature that can play, make decisions, etc, is much more complex than dirt, this simple logic seems to disagree with "Life is based on a different principle, "order-from-order."

What about the generations of worms, bugs and bacteria that were possible because the body of the dog was available to consume? Each of those represents a decrease in entropy(increase in order), they in turn enrich the soil so plants may create order as well. Then animals could eat those plants and be playful, decisive, etc. The actual increase of entropy is considerable, but the sun pays for the loss thousands of times over(and wastes most of it shining into empty space). Total system entropy increases, even if every planet in our system was covered in life.

In fact, if we enclosed the sun in a big sphere(a Dyson Sphere) and captured every erg of energy the sun produced, the total entropy would still increase from waste heat, if nothing else.

Grumpy

Ok. No objections.

[Explicit atheist]

The above exchange illustrates the basic issue. The Origin-of-Life researchers have lots of data and lots of ideas, but no absolute proof of a particular mechanism by which life certainly arose from plain old chemistry. The anti-evolution folks insist that the physical origin of life (as opposed to special creation) is hogwash, a flight of fancy for which there are no facts. They use this to claim that evolution is impossible, although "evolution" is what life does after it exists, not before.

Questions for Debate

1. Are there data and ideas? Are they valid? What is the current status of Origin-of-Life research?
2. What, if anything, has been debunked?
3. Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is impossible until it's been re-constructed in the lab, with a complete description of every step? We don't require this level of certainty for medical research; why require it for this?

1. & 2. Origin of Life research has a long way to go. There are multiple ideas, some with interesting supporting evidence, and we can find them by searching the internet.

3. Of course, as we know, it is incorrect to assert that chemical origin of life is impossible because it hasn't been re-constructed in the lab or because there is not a complete description of every step. We know all life is chemical, we even know what the chemicals are, so it logically follows that life has chemical origins. I do not see any justificaton for seriously entertaining any other possibility.

[Jose]

1. & 2. Origin of Life research has a long way to go. There are multiple ideas, some with interesting supporting evidence, and we can find them by searching the internet.

Thank you, E.a., and welcome! I suspect that everyone would agree that there's a long way to go.

You raise an interesting question, though, in referring to the internet. How does one determine whether the author of the site one finds is "correct," or is pushing an agenda? It might be safe to say that everyone is pushing an agenda, I suppose... The scientific literature is composed of papers in which each research group argues for their particular interpretation of the data. That's kind of like pushing an agenda, though it's reined in by the competitive reviews that occur prior to publication. I see this "agenda" as an attempt to figure out what actually happened, but we can find others in these forums who claim science itself is an anti-Christian agenda.

I guess that's part of why these debates exist.

3. Of course, as we know, it is incorrect to assert that chemical origin of life is impossible because it hasn't been re-constructed in the lab or because there is not a complete description of every step. We know all life is chemical, we even know what the chemicals are, so it logically follows that life has chemical origins. I do not see any justificaton for seriously entertaining any other possibility.

Sneaky strategy--apply logic and common sense. Makes sense to me.

[Explicit atheist]

Thank you, E.a., and welcome! I suspect that everyone would agree that there's a long way to go.

Thank you. There are some very good debaters on this forum. One of capabilities I don't see with this forum software is the ability to list all the threads a particular author started and to list all of a particular author's posts.

You raise an interesting question, though, in referring to the internet. How does one determine whether the author of the site one finds is "correct," or is pushing an agenda? It might be safe to say that everyone is pushing an agenda, I suppose... The scientific literature is composed of papers in which each research group argues for their particular interpretation of the data. That's kind of like pushing an agenda, though it's reined in by the competitive reviews that occur prior to publication. I see this "agenda" as an attempt to figure out what actually happened, but we can find others in these forums who claim science itself is an anti-Christian agenda.

Well, I searched the internet and I found this: Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask

[Jose]

One of capabilities I don't see with this forum software is the ability to list all the threads a particular author started and to list all of a particular author's posts.

If you click on a member's name, you should be directed to their public profile page. It should have a link that says "find all posts by _____". This can produce many pages, which can be tedious to go through. I don't know of a way to find threads that a particular person started. Hmmm.

Well, I searched the internet and I found this: Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask

Cool. I hadn't found that site before. Thanks.