Suddenly there was life

[Collier]

My belief in God is not based on science. However, given what science has been revealing about nature, I repeat my original statement:
“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.”

I see nothing wrong with that statement.

[Collier]

Viruses do not qualify as “self-replicating” organisms. They cannot reproduce without the help of a living cell, and could not survive unless cells were already present.

A living CELL is the smallest entity that is both self-sustaining and self-replicating. Check it out. There are lots of biology websites to confirm that fact.

Scientists have been working for several years to determine the minimum requirements of a living cell. The following list does not cover them all, but it is an absolute minimum:

A protective membrane. If you care to know how complex this membrane MUST be, check out any reputable university biology website.

At least eighty different kinds of proteins. Again, the complexity and specificity of a single protein is beyond what most of us can imagine. Just HAVING the twenty different amino acids that are used to form a protein is not enough. They have to be in a very specific order.

An information storage system - to store the information necessary in order to instruct the ribosomes how to produce the proteins that the cell needs, AS WELL AS the information necessary to cause the cell to divide into two cells of the same kind. Without all that information, life will not continue.

No information storage system so far devised by man can rival the DNA molecule. Check it out.

So far as the EVIDENCE is concerned, DNA did not evolve. It was present in the first organisms found in the fossil record. And those first organisms appear very early in earth’s history.

Therefore, if the computer you are working at can logically be attributed to an intelligent being, then so can DNA.

I do agree that the creator of the universe also established laws that controlled the universe in its development. But the EVIDENCE suggests that life could not have occurred by natural processes alone.

I am willing to go with the evidence.

[Collier]

Impossible as it seems for the chemical and physical properties of a living organism to occur by chance, there is an even more difficult problem.

Let’s say you have all the chemicals, already assembled into amino acids, nucleic acids – everything you need for a living cell.

You can get that by having a test-tube full of living bacteria, and then killing the bacteria by – say – puncturing the membrane in some way. The amino acids and nucleic acids are all there, already assembled. Even the information for life that is stored in the DNA is there.

But there is no life.

There are some interesting experiments going on right now, trying to make a new species out of existing ones. But nobody is trying to do that with non-living material, not even dead organic material. Only LIVING organisms are used. Life is something more than chemistry.

How can you define that elusive quality that is so real, but so indescribable?

“The breath of life” may be as good a definition as we are likely to find. And, since there is no logical reason to believe that life can come from non-life, it is not unreasonable to conclude that it came from a living Creator.

[Collier]

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

The reason I have been quoting from Denton is that he had no religious preconceptions to defend. He believed Genesis to be a myth. [That carries some weight in some quarters.]

For a current book on the subject, INCLUDING the theory of abiogenesis, Fazale Rana’s The Cell’s Design is excellent. It has a great deal of information not available to Denton, and it confirms Denton’s prediction, made in 1985:

"It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. ... The credibility of natural selection is weakened therefore, not only by the perfection we have already glimpsed but by the expectation of further as yet unheard of depths of ingenuity and complexity." Right on.

Denton believes that "The Priority of the Paradigm" (chapter 15) explains the present unwillingness to consider any alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution. And the history of science gives ample evidence that paradigms die hard.

No matter WHERE the evidence leads.

[Collier]

“Missing Believed Non-existent” was the headline of an article in The Guardian Weekly, 26 November 1978. It was written by a reporter who attended a press conference in which Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould unfolded their “punctuated equilibrium” model of evolution.

What had caught the attention of the reporter was the revelation of what Gould has called “the trade secret of paleontology”. The absence of transitional forms is no longer a secret. In fact, it was this very lack of transitional forms that caused Eldridge and Gould, both paleontologists, to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The Darwinian model of small, incremental changes had no support from the fossil record.

Darwin made this statement about his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [The Origin of Species, 6th edition, p. 182]

Denton believes that the avian lung is one such organ. (The following information is found on pp. 210-213, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis. The same info can be obtained at several sites on-line.).

A bird’s lung is different from that of any other vertebrate. It is a “drive through” system, in which the air always flows in the same direction. It means a continuous supply of fresh air to the blood, a tremendous advantage for the energy-consuming work of flight.

The lung does not expand and contract. It can’t. Instead, a complex system of air sacs provides the constant flow of air through the lung, whether the bird is inhaling or exhaling.

Such a respiratory system also requires several related adaptations of the circulatory system.

Considering the fact that respiratory function cannot be compromised for any length of time without fatal results, it is difficult to imagine any functional intermediates, and particularly difficult to imagine MANY functional intermediates. The avian lung is perfect for birds. Every bird has essentially the same kind of lung, and no other animal has anything like it.

I agree with Denton. The avian lung seems to be a convincing answer (one of many) to Darwin’s challenge. Transitional stages between the vertebrate lung and the avian lung are “missing” and can be “presumed non-existent.”

[oxmixmudd]

So far as the EVIDENCE is concerned, DNA did not evolve. It was present in the first organisms found in the fossil record. And those first organisms appear very early in earth’s history.

There is no evidence as to what the very first organisms used. We do not have DNA fossils from the organisms themselves.

Therefore, if the computer you are working at can logically be attributed to an intelligent being, then so can DNA.

This is not true. We identify a designer by first knowing what is possible naturally. The configuration of metals and other materials in my computer do not occur naturally. We do not yet know if the chemicals of life have some natural path - if there is some way that a cell can indeed self-organize. We are pretty darn sure the computer chip in my lap top can't self-organize.

ETA: We also determine design by marks left in the object that identify the designer. What we see in life so far has no discernible branding by a designer.

I do agree that the creator of the universe also established laws that controlled the universe in its development. But the EVIDENCE suggests that life could not have occurred by natural processes alone.

I am willing to go with the evidence.

I would say there just isn't enough known yet to draw either conclusion. I marvel at life as you do, and attribute it to the creator God, but I do not know if it is due to divine intervention or simply divine design - from the very beginning.

I do know that assigning what we don't know about to miraculous intervention is generally superstition. We just don't know the mechanism behind life coming about. Sure it was God, but how, and by what process? We don't know. You declare it reasonable to believe it was a miracle/could only have been a miracle. I disagree. It is reasonable to say we do not know.


Jim

[lee_merrill]

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.

That is not evidence, that is hypothesizing--and specifics, please?

There is also this research concerning the spontaneous reproduction of RNA.

Which has its difficulties, let's not give the impression that RNA is evolving in the test tube as we speak.[/quote]

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

"However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA..."

© source where applicable

Are we skipping homochirality?

At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

That's fine, let's not claim more than is evident from this.

"Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"

Methinks we are overstating the case.

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.” [/cite]

"Usually, prebiotic reactions are stopped before chemical breakdown occurs. Chemists know that once a synthesis is completed if the products are not removed from the reaction they will eventually be destroyed. Researchers are often careful to exclude materials from prebiotic simulations that would have occurred on early Earth but would interfere and disrupt the reactions that take place in the lab. In other words, origin-of-life researchers have achieved faux success by 'stacking the deck' in their favor." (Reasons to Believe here)

First, the lack of an explanation at present by science does not justify a theistic 'Source.'

Right, but scientific understanding can help us estimate the probability of various natural events, this is a good idea.

This is particularly relavent since we have absolutely no evidence for a theistic 'Source'...

Erm, we have a design log book? re Genesis 1.

Natural bubble protein membranes have been shown to form naturally.

Around strands of RNA too! Well, no, and that's the difficulty mentioned, all these elements have to be around at the same time and place. The problem I have with RNA-world discussions is that so much is glossed over by the naturalists, as if there were no substantial obstacles or difficulties.

Blessings,
Lee

[Carrikature]

...is that so much is glossed over by the naturalists, as if there were no substantial obstacles or difficulties.

I think this accurately sums up my position. I have a friend who thinks I generally distrust scientists because "they may have an agenda" (which I don't think). I just feel like some of them are overstating their case.

[martineargent]

Hi Collier,

Well dude,You are right in your respective stand as Cosmogony is different concept and evolution is a different concept .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. Yes, you are right , Darwin is right in his stand and all others also prove his/her theory. Life is first originated from Cell and Cell is first arrived from chemical composition of different minerals and ions which are present freely at that time. Well, Exact story is not known to any one but predictions are made and Life is going at its extreme roots.

Thanks

[shunyadragon]

Viruses do not qualify as “self-replicating” organisms. They cannot reproduce without the help of a living cell, and could not survive unless cells were already present.

Wrong, viruses are life according to science. All life forms require an outside energy source to survive regardless.

A living CELL is the smallest entity that is both self-sustaining and self-replicating. Check it out. There are lots of biology websites to confirm that fact.

Biology websites will confirm cells by themselves are not self sustaining. They like viruses need an outside food source.

Scientists have been working for several years to determine the minimum requirements of a living cell. The following list does not cover them all, but it is an absolute minimum:

A protective membrane. If you care to know how complex this membrane MUST be, check out any reputable university biology website.

At least eighty different kinds of proteins. Again, the complexity and specificity of a single protein is beyond what most of us can imagine. Just HAVING the twenty different amino acids that are used to form a protein is not enough. They have to be in a very specific order.

An information storage system - to store the information necessary in order to instruct the ribosomes how to produce the proteins that the cell needs, AS WELL AS the information necessary to cause the cell to divide into two cells of the same kind. Without all that information, life will not continue.

Again, acording to science the minimum requirements for a cell are not the minimum requirement for life. Viruses are life forms.

So far as the EVIDENCE is concerned, DNA did not evolve. It was present in the first organisms found in the fossil record. And those first organisms appear very early in earth’s history.

False, DNA does evolve.

Therefore, if the computer you are working at can logically be attributed to an intelligent being, then so can DNA.

No, the computer has little in common with life forms.

I do agree that the creator of the universe also established laws that controlled the universe in its development. But the EVIDENCE suggests that life could not have occurred by natural processes alone.

I am willing to go with the evidence.

False, research in abiogenesis indicates life could have arose by natural processes.

[shunyadragon]

Hi Collier,

Well dude,You are right in your respective stand as Cosmogony is different concept and evolution is a different concept .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. Yes, you are right , Darwin is right in his stand and all others also prove his/her theory. Life is first originated from Cell and Cell is first arrived from chemical composition of different minerals and ions which are present freely at that time. Well, Exact story is not known to any one but predictions are made and Life is going at its extreme roots.

Thanks

False, science has not proven life only comes from life. If you make this claim please cite a scientific source that indicates this.

[shunyadragon]

That is not evidence, that is hypothesizing--and specifics, please?


Which has its difficulties, let's not give the impression that RNA is evolving in the test tube as we speak.

There is no impression made that this is the case.

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

"However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA..."

© source where applicable

Are we skipping homochirality?


That's fine, let's not claim more than is evident from this.

"Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"

Methinks we are overstating the case.

I think you are understating the scientific case with a religious agenda. Yes, the full story of abiogenesis has not yet been worked out, but the case is getting stronger with time.

Erm, we have a design log book? re Genesis 1.

I said evidence, citing ancient mythical stories of creation is not evidence. Your religious agenda relying on ancient sources is showing.

Around strands of RNA too! Well, no, and that's the difficulty mentioned, all these elements have to be around at the same time and place. The problem I have with RNA-world discussions is that so much is glossed over by the naturalists, as if there were no substantial obstacles or difficulties.

Blessings,
Lee

Nothing is glossed over. Your religious agenda is biasing your view of science. The fact that all the steps and problems have not been resolved does not detract from the advances science has made in recent years toward resolving the abiogenesis problems.

[shunyadragon]

Impossible as it seems for the chemical and physical properties of a living organism to occur by chance, there is an even more difficult problem.

Again, please let's get back to science, chance or randomness, plays no role in the science of abiogenesis and evolution. Get the basics straight.

Let’s say you have all the chemicals, already assembled into amino acids, nucleic acids – everything you need for a living cell.

You can get that by having a test-tube full of living bacteria, and then killing the bacteria by – say – puncturing the membrane in some way. The amino acids and nucleic acids are all there, already assembled. Even the information for life that is stored in the DNA is there.

But there is no life.

There are some interesting experiments going on right now, trying to make a new species out of existing ones. But nobody is trying to do that with non-living material, not even dead organic material. Only LIVING organisms are used. Life is something more than chemistry.

Your ignorance in abiogenesis research is showing. Yes, there is extensive research ongoing in the abiogenesis of non-life to life.

[franktalk]

The problem with using science as a basis for an argument is that you are doomed to the ever changing landscape of science. As stated earlier by shunyadragon science does not prove things. As they see something repeat they add it to their mix of observations. Then create theories around those observations. But the reason behind the observations is beyond science. As they investigate down into root causes they end up with observations not causes. So all of science is founded on vapor.

Now I agree that life is complicated, so much so that it is hard to think of a way that life came from dirt by itself. Science is the one which made the observations which lead us to make these conclusions. But what we don't know should not be used in an argument framed in the manner you have posted. Our lack of understanding changes daily. I have argued this same point in apologetics in a thread called how we interpret the past. It is the impossibility of knowing the past that is the issue. Even if one could come up with a mechanism of change between raw elements and life it still would not be able to be tested. We would need a time machine to observe the past to know what happened. So we are left with nothing, no proof, no observation. But to base an argument on science allows science to come up with the theory of the week and if enough people agree with the new theory it becomes an accepted norm. What you want is to stay far away from a show of hands from the scientific community.

Anyway, I agree with your attitude, just the mechanics I have questions about.

[bling]

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



An unwarranted assunption on your part.



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

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.'



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.



Natural bubble protein membranes have been shown to form naturally.



False.



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

Is the primative virus really life?
Virus have to use living cells to reproduce and multiply. They are more like a poison that can mutate.
We do not know what it would take to produce real life.