Suddenly there was life

[Collier]

I have been working through chapter 1 of Genesis in the forum Cosmogony 101. But the story has reached the subject of LIFE, and that does not belong in cosmogony. It belongs in science.

Intense scientific research has been focused on life and its origins for several years, so that’s where any evidence should come from. It should be either the evidence of personal observation or documented evidence that is not in dispute.

In other words, I will not be quoting the Bible as evidence.

A book that I have found very helpful was written by Michael Denton, an agnostic with no religious preconceptions to defend. He is a molecular biologist known for his biological research, and he is a very good writer (no sloppy English). In 1985 he wrote Evolution: a Theory in Crisis; and that book is still worth careful study by anyone who likes science. I intend to quote from it occasionally.

One other thing: I’m sure we all agree that Darwin’s special theory of evolution through natural selection has been proven true, beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution, in this sense, is a fact.

His general theory (that the same process can explain all of the biological diversity that exists on earth) is open to dispute.

[95th]

God created life through a miracle, miracles have no place in science, science has proved life comes from life, life does not come from non-life.
So (as a christian) your looking to science for the answer on how God created without a miracle?

[Chaotic Void]

Moderated By: Chaotic Void

Wrong area. Moving to Cosmogony.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Collier]

So (as a christian) your looking to science for the answer on how God created without a miracle? [/QUOTE]

Not at all. Miracles that ar real have nothing to fear from science. The God who created the universe left plenty of evidence.

[95th]

Miracles that ar real have nothing to fear from science

How would you prove a miracle useing science?

[shunyadragon]

God created life through a miracle, miracles have no place in science, science has proved life comes from life, life does not come from non-life.
So (as a christian) your looking to science for the answer on how God created without a miracle?

Science has proved nothing of the sort, in fact science proves nothing. You will have to start over with this one. It is basically nonsense.

[shunyadragon]

I have been working through chapter 1 of Genesis in the forum Cosmogony 101. But the story has reached the subject of LIFE, and that does not belong in cosmogony. It belongs in science.

Intense scientific research has been focused on life and its origins for several years, so that’s where any evidence should come from. It should be either the evidence of personal observation or documented evidence that is not in dispute.

In other words, I will not be quoting the Bible as evidence.

A book that I have found very helpful was written by Michael Denton, an agnostic with no religious preconceptions to defend. He is a molecular biologist known for his biological research, and he is a very good writer (no sloppy English). In 1985 he wrote Evolution: a Theory in Crisis; and that book is still worth careful study by anyone who likes science. I intend to quote from it occasionally.

One other thing: I’m sure we all agree that Darwin’s special theory of evolution through natural selection has been proven true, beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution, in this sense, is a fact.

His general theory (that the same process can explain all of the biological diversity that exists on earth) is open to dispute.

This book is a little old. The study of biogenesis concerning the origins of life was relatively unknown at the time.

[95th]

Science has proved nothing of the sort, in fact science proves nothing. You will have to start over with this one. It is basically nonsense.

?

[shunyadragon]

?

Yes, nonsense. Science does not prove things.

[John Goddard]

Yes, nonsense. Science does not prove things.

It proves at least one thing.

Science proves that love is blind...They have found that feelings of love lead to a suppression of activity in the areas of the brain controlling critical thought.

So for example, your ability to think critically may be reduced by love of scientists.

[shunyadragon]

It proves at least one thing.

Science proves that love is blind...They have found that feelings of love lead to a suppression of activity in the areas of the brain controlling critical thought.

So for example, your ability to think critically may be reduced by love of scientists.

This is very interesting, but the article is a layman's article misusing the word 'proves' in a scientific context, which is unfortunately very common. It may be better word as 'demonstrates,' or maybe 'research indicates' from a layman's perspective. Love is not the only emotion that likely distorts human 'critical thinking.'

[Collier]

Suddenly there was life.

The law of biogenesis states that life cannot arise naturally from non-life. Living things can only be produced by other living things.

But life had a beginning. There was a time when there was no life at all. Then – suddenly - life appeared, fully functional, able to reproduce itself. That is the evidence of science.

In other words, science cannot explain the origin of life, any more than it can explain the origin of the universe.

It has been determined that the absolute minimum requirements of a self-replicating organism include:
A protective membrane capable of letting in nutrients and oxygen and releasing waste products;
At least 80 different kinds of proteins, capable of doing different jobs, including the manufacture of proteins;
An information storage system such as the DNA molecule.

Already we have a seemingly insurmountable problem. A cell cannot live without a membrane. A membrane has to be manufactured by proteins. Proteins cannot manufacture a membrane without instructions from DNA. Neither DNA nor proteins can exist without a protective membrane.

So all of these interdependent systems had to appear at once. Suddenly, as the fossil record reveals. And EACH of those systms is enormously complex.

Harvard has a site called BioVisions which contains – among other things - a short, animated movie called "The Inner Life of the Cell".

[By the way, thank you, Harvard, for your generosity in making so much wonderful material open to the public.]

The Wikipedia entry on “The Inner Life of the Cell” has links at the end to both the movie and the presentation given by David Bolinsky when he introduced it. Both are fascinating.

Bolinsky describes the cell’s protein micro-machines as “the envy of nano-technologists the world over.” And I love the motor protein which he calls the “Fed-Ex delivery guy” of the cell.

This is only a small part of the complexity which we now know exists within living cells. And we know only a small part of the whole, according to Bolinsky.

None of this compels me to believe in a creator. But such things do suggest that belief in an intelligent creator is a perfectly rational conclusion, based – not on ignorance – but on valid scientific evidence.

[oxmixmudd]

Suddenly there was life.

The law of biogenesis states that life cannot arise naturally from non-life. Living things can only be produced by other living things.

But life had a beginning. There was a time when there was no life at all. Then – suddenly - life appeared, fully functional, able to reproduce itself. That is the evidence of science.

Actually, the scientific evidence is that life has evolved, and that the very earliest life was very simple - just single celled creatures. But science is unable - at least in terms of fossil evidence- to tell us anything at all about how life first appeared on this planet and what intermediate (if any) steps existed.

Partly because we aren't sure what such intermediate stages would look like - if the existed.

You are using the fact the evidence trail stops with single celled creatures to conclude positively that there was a discrete jump. That is flawed logic.

In other words, science cannot explain the origin of life, any more than it can explain the origin of the universe.

Don't overstate your case. No full path from non-life to life has been found. But intermediate steps have been discovered.

It has been determined that the absolute minimum requirements of a self-replicating organism include:
A protective membrane capable of letting in nutrients and oxygen and releasing waste products;
At least 80 different kinds of proteins, capable of doing different jobs, including the manufacture of proteins;
An information storage system such as the DNA molecule.

I doubt this is a true minimum. You need to understand that all such speculations are just as potentially flawed as the speculations on abiogenesis you reject.

Already we have a seemingly insurmountable problem. A cell cannot live without a membrane. A membrane has to be manufactured by proteins. Proteins cannot manufacture a membrane without instructions from DNA. Neither DNA nor proteins can exist without a protective membrane.

So all of these interdependent systems had to appear at once. Suddenly, as the fossil record reveals. And EACH of those systms is enormously complex.

Harvard has a site called BioVisions which contains – among other things - a short, animated movie called "The Inner Life of the Cell".

[By the way, thank you, Harvard, for your generosity in making so much wonderful material open to the public.]

The Wikipedia entry on “The Inner Life of the Cell” has links at the end to both the movie and the presentation given by David Bolinsky when he introduced it. Both are fascinating.

Bolinsky describes the cell’s protein micro-machines as “the envy of nano-technologists the world over.” And I love the motor protein which he calls the “Fed-Ex delivery guy” of the cell.

This is only a small part of the complexity which we now know exists within living cells. And we know only a small part of the whole, according to Bolinsky.

None of this compels me to believe in a creator. But such things do suggest that belief in an intelligent creator is a perfectly rational conclusion, based – not on ignorance – but on valid scientific evidence.

And what happens to a faith built on this line of reasoning when it is discovered that life can indeed form from non-life?

To base one's faith in God on the idea there are things which exist in this universe that could not have had an origin in the natural laws and systems of this universe has so far always been shown to be faith built on sand.

Logically, why would an infinite creator, omnipotent, omniscient, need to make life by miracle? Could he not just as easily design and call into existence a universe capable of bringing about life?

This is a foolish thing to base ones faith upon then, as either approach is possible. OTOH, the scripture does imply God told the earth and the sea to bring forth life.

If anything, this should bias those of us believing those words to accepting at least the possibility that God gave the earth and sea the capability to bring forth life. And I would caution anyone against basing their faith on some natural construct having supernatural origin which in turn is based on the fact we currently know of no natural forming mechanism.


Jim

[MooseOnTheLoose]

One other thing: I’m sure we all agree that Darwin’s special theory of evolution through natural selection has been proven true, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Well that's one thing you got wrong right away!

[shunyadragon]

Suddenly there was life.

The law of biogenesis states that life cannot arise naturally from non-life.

Misleading there are no laws of abiogenesis. I apologize for the earlier misspelling.

Living things can only be produced by other living things.

An unwarranted assunption on your part.

But life had a beginning. There was a time when there was no life at all. Then – suddenly - life appeared, fully functional, able to reproduce itself. That is the evidence of science.

No, that is not the evidence of science. By the evidence, life naturally did not likely suddenly appear and fully functional. Research in abiogenesis has demonstrated possible intermediate forms of reproducable protein structures that could form in environments like the hot vents at the bottom of oceans. Thes primitive structures rely on natural structures as catalists like pyrite crystals.

There is also this research concerning the spontaneous reproduction of RNA

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.


According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”


Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

© source where applicable

In other words, science cannot explain the origin of life, any more than it can explain the origin of the universe.

First, the lack of an explanation at present by science does not justify a theistic 'Source.' As science has advanced it is often overlooked by traditional theists that the knowledge of science has passed them by, such as demonstrated in this thread.

This is particularly relavent since we have absolutely no evidence for a theistic 'Source,' but the knowledge of science is advancing continuously providing evidence for a natural 'Source.'

It has been determined that the absolute minimum requirements of a self-replicating organism include:
A protective membrane capable of letting in nutrients and oxygen and releasing waste products;
At least 80 different kinds of proteins, capable of doing different jobs, including the manufacture of proteins;
An information storage system such as the DNA molecule.

What you describe her is a pretty advanced form of life, more advance than some known forms of life like the primitive viruses.

No, according the present research in abiogenesis primitive self replicating protein structures and RNA do not need all the above to form.

Already we have a seemingly insurmountable problem. A cell cannot live without a membrane. A membrane has to be manufactured by proteins. Proteins cannot manufacture a membrane without instructions from DNA. Neither DNA nor proteins can exist without a protective membrane.

Natural bubble protein membranes have been shown to form naturally.

So all of these interdependent systems had to appear at once. Suddenly, as the fossil record reveals. And EACH of those systems is enormously complex.

False.

Harvard has a site called BioVisions which contains – among other things - a short, animated movie called "The Inner Life of the Cell".

[By the way, thank you, Harvard, for your generosity in making so much wonderful material open to the public.]

The Wikipedia entry on “The Inner Life of the Cell” has links at the end to both the movie and the presentation given by David Bolinsky when he introduced it. Both are fascinating.

Bolinsky describes the cell’s protein micro-machines as “the envy of nano-technologists the world over.” And I love the motor protein which he calls the “Fed-Ex delivery guy” of the cell.

This is only a small part of the complexity which we now know exists within living cells. And we know only a small part of the whole, according to Bolinsky.

None of this compels me to believe in a creator. But such things do suggest that belief in an intelligent creator is a perfectly rational conclusion, based – not on ignorance – but on valid scientific evidence.

The above does not reflect the present level of knowledge and research in abiogenesis.