Primitive life on Earth

[Michael]

None of the literature that I have read provides a plausible mechanism by which life could arise spontaneously on an early earth.

So?
What do you think that means?
That a literal reading of Genesis is true? Or just that we don't know how life arose on Earth?

I think it means that we do not know how life arose, but we know that the process had to be directed, because known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous (by lots of very small steps taking place over millions of years) generation of life. But of course someone may one day show that life can arise spontaneous without the need for an external agent to direct the process.
And some believe that the book of Genesis tells who that agent was, without telling us (except in very general and non-scientific terms) how He did it.

Hediditbyabiogenesis

[cathy]

because known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous (by lots of very small steps taking place over millions of years) generation of life

Marc that is one of your popular mantras. You've said it hundreds of times. And in response I've asked hundreds of times can you explain HOW known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous generation of life? With research data and examples.

Now I asked you several questions which you haven't yet answered. Can you start with these from earlier on so we can get an idea of what you're on about and progress beyond the above and the usual abiogenesis is linked to evolution lie.

Marc wrote: 2) believing that an intelligent agent constructed the machines and assembled them by manipulation of matter in a way that we are not yet able to achieve.
However, we are starting to manipulate matter at the microscopic level and I believe that humans are potentially capable of manufacturing living systems from scratch, which will demonstrate that it can be done by intelligent agents.
Cathy replied: So God came down (or the intelligent agent) and constructed what exactly?

If your machine (which you haven't defined at all) is RNA or DNA and proteins are you actually saying Genesis should say God came down and made RNA and proteins chucked them in a pond and left them? Is that what you are saying? Please be precise. Can't discuss this point until you make it clear what you are on about.

Please clarify - are you saying God came down and magickically glued together nucleotides than shoved them in a pond with some amino acides and left? Or are you saying God came down and magicked up some simple prokaryotic cells and left them in a pond? Cos that would be manufacturing a living system from scratch.

Given irreducible complexity of existing biology/biochemistry does not exist (as all evidence shows it is NOT irreducibly complex) and given what we know about before and after the origin of life - are you really shoving God into a gap to desperately glue together nucleotides? What does that say about God?

And more importantly why is that not recorded in the book of Genesis.

[marcsurtees]

because known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous (by lots of very small steps taking place over millions of years) generation of life

Marc that is one of your popular mantras. You've said it hundreds of times. And in response I've asked hundreds of times can you explain HOW known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous generation of life? With research data and examples.

All the published research on this subject has failed to demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.

Now I asked you several questions which you haven't yet answered. Can you start with these from earlier on so we can get an idea of what you're on about and progress beyond the above and the usual abiogenesis is linked to evolution lie.

No.. abiogenesis is not linked to evolution, it is a separate but very important question.
If someone shows that life can arise spontaneously then it would falsify an important YEC hypothesis.
And I can't answer your questions because here because I don't know the scientific answers.

[cathy]

All the published research on this subject has failed to demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.

Your statements/mantras are along the lines that known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous generation of life. The above statement is not a clear falsification. Known chemistry is the basis of life - please specify how this known chemistry clearly and unambigously falsifies the spontaneous generation of life - beyond we don't know yet? Or stop making misleading statements and state honestly instead that it isn't known yet.

The structure of DNA wasn't known yet in the 1940s, that does not falsify it. The existance of certain elements were once unknown that does not falsify their existence. Don't know yet is not falsification, otherwise discoveries are really inventions or magic.

No.. abiogenesis is not linked to evolution, it is a separate but very important question.

So stop pretending it is, which you do again and again here and probably far more to your peers and dopes. Oh and take your peers to task when they tell the same lie - you can start with C4ID.

If someone shows that life can arise spontaneously then it would falsify an important YEC hypothesis.

All YEC hypotheses have already been falsified, what difference will another make. It would however get rid of yet another YEC lie that abiogenesis is linked to evolution.

And I can't answer your questions because here because I don't know the scientific answers.

What you mean is you have no ideas or questions to suppose scientific answers to - cos that is what I was asking for. You and McIntosh are the ones going on about machines and stating machines must have been created to deal with information. I assumed therefore you would have some idea of what you would be scientifically looking for, enough to forumulate a hypothesis? Or be in the process of formulating a hypotheses to test? You don't seem to have leads at all beyond dust to man therefore you're in the realms of sci fi and just rambling! Put up or shut up.

Unlike abiogenesis which is certain life arose, certain of the form of the earliest recognisable life, certain of the features life needs and therefore in a position to attempt at least to formulate some scientific hyptheses to test about the stages - even if they all fail. Hence in the realm of science! They at least have come up with an idea of what they are looking for. Why haven't you?

And no science is needed to answer my main points that evolution does not need abiogenesis, cos nothing stops you shoving God into thast particular gap? Nor do you need science to answer what God having to come down to wave a wand says about God, ie why not do it properly in the first place,

Some points for you to ignore.

[Dagsannr]

All the published research on this subject has failed to demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.

Your statements/mantras are along the lines that known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous generation of life. The above statement is not a clear falsification. Known chemistry is the basis of life - please specify how this known chemistry clearly and unambigously falsifies the spontaneous generation of life - beyond we don't know yet? Or stop making misleading statements and state honestly instead that it isn't known yet.

The structure of DNA wasn't known yet in the 1940s, that does not falsify it. The existance of certain elements were once unknown that does not falsify their existence. Don't know yet is not falsification, otherwise discoveries are really inventions or magic.

Cathy has hit the nail on the head here, Marc. You seem to equate 'don't know' with 'proven false'.

[marcsurtees]

All the published research on this subject has failed to demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.

Your statements/mantras are along the lines that known chemistry falsifies the spontaneous generation of life. The above statement is not a clear falsification. Known chemistry is the basis of life - please specify how this known chemistry clearly and unambigously falsifies the spontaneous generation of life - beyond we don't know yet? Or stop making misleading statements and state honestly instead that it isn't known yet.

The chemistry of some of the biomolecular machines that make up the living cell and their interactions is understood to some extent. But there is no known way to get from the starting materials (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur ... and a handful of others) to DNA, RNA and protein etc. So the statement that life can arise spontaneously has not been verified scientifically.

The structure of DNA wasn't known yet in the 1940s, that does not falsify it. The existance of certain elements were once unknown that does not falsify their existence.

We knew what DNA was made up of but we had to work out how the parts were arranged. So the problem was to work out a structure consistent with known chemistry. Any proposed solution that did not work within those constraints failed as a theory.
The "laws of chemstry" are pretty well understood and they show that you cannot get life from the chemical ingredients.

Don't know yet is not falsification, otherwise discoveries are really inventions or magic.

Neither is it a scientific explanation. (And was the electron discovered or invented?)

And I can't answer your questions because here because I don't know the scientific answers.

What you mean is you have no ideas or questions to suppose scientific answers to - cos that is what I was asking for. You and McIntosh are the ones going on about machines and stating machines must have been created to deal with information. I assumed therefore you would have some idea of what you would be scientifically looking for, enough to forumulate a hypothesis? Or be in the process of formulating a hypotheses to test? You don't seem to have leads at all beyond dust to man therefore you're in the realms of sci fi and just rambling! Put up or shut up.

You have not undertood the problem. The problem is were did the information come from to make the machines of life (the smallest unit of which is the living cell) . Currently there is no scientific answer to that question. And you are right YECs / ID proponents do not have a scientifically testable hypothesis either. The best we can do with todays science is detect design (the purposeful arrangement of parts, that would not self-assemble from the starting materials).

Having said that the average sample of earth (soil) does have all the ingredients needed to make a living cell.

And no science is needed to answer my main points that evolution does not need abiogenesis, cos nothing stops you shoving God into thast particular gap? Nor do you need science to answer what God having to come down to wave a wand says about God, ie why not do it properly in the first place,
Some points for you to ignore.

Science only on this thread, so I have to ignore you or get my knuckles rapped!

[cathy]

We knew what DNA was made up of but we had to work out how the parts were arranged. So the problem was to work out a structure consistent with known chemistry. Any proposed solution that did not work within those constraints failed as a theory.

Yep and that took a lot of time and effort and the input of many different people. And it relied on previous discoveries as well. At many points before Crick and Watsons Eureka moment (after nicking stuff from Rosalind Franklin, who as a girl didn't matter) there were loads of false starts and errors. And prior to that we did not know what it was made up of, we had to work that out first. Big problem taking nearly 100 years to fully solve!!!

Now by the reasoning you're applying to abiogenesis, those false starts and the very long time taken to get from interesting things about pus to the double helix and beyond is falsification of the notion of DNA! That seems to be the point you are making about abiogenesis? Not fully solved therefore falsified?

But there is no known way to get from the starting materials (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur ... and a handful of others) to DNA, RNA and protein etc.

There was once no known way to understand how the starting materials were arranged into a reasonable replicating mechanism that fitted snugly into the cell! As you said we had to work out how those parts were arranged. Nor was there a known way to get from amino acid to protein. So does that mean it was falsified?

Insert DNA structure/mechanisms into YEC arguments about abiogenesis and just see how inane your point is!

As for abiogenesis - we know somehow somewhere that it happened. Insert magic in there if you wish - but even for the most devout believer - that looks less likely. Suggesting as it does that God cocked up on the organic chemistry front. And has no effect whatsoever on the subsequent evolution!!!! And it would not suggest a very good designer in the great scheme of things.

The "laws of chemstry" are pretty well understood and they show that you cannot get life from the chemical ingredients

Marc I've lost count of how many times you've said this. And the number of times I've asked for proof/evidence/an explanation for it? Prove this statement conclusively or stop making it! Cos from where I'm standing a fair few eminent chemists seem to be in disagreement with you. And seem to be exploring lots of new avenues.

Science only on this thread, so I have to ignore you or get my knuckles rapped!

Since when has that stopped you. Move the answer elsewhere if you wish. And you are the one that brought the notion of mysterious machines onto this thread. Anyway pop the answer onto the scripture thread.

Now your arguments are so silly I'm going to have to believe that the walnut whip in my bag is crying out to me to be eaten and I was going to save it for my oldest child whose doing her chemistry empa today.

[marcsurtees]

That seems to be the point you are making about abiogenesis? Not fully solved therefore falsified?

Not even the first steps have been found...

But there is no known way to get from the starting materials (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur ... and a handful of others) to DNA, RNA and protein etc.

There was once no known way to get the starting materials to form into a reasonable replicating mechanism that fitted snugly into the cell! As you said we had to work out how those parts were arranged. Nor was there a known way to get from amino acid to protein.

Not sure what you are trying to say.
Living things fit all the bits together well and we know where they come from.
Living things are very good at making protein from amino acids. Chemists also are able to make proteins...

As for abiogenesis - we know somehow somewhere that it happened.

Correction... we know that living things come from living things.

[cathy]

Not sure what you are trying to say.
Living things fit all the bits together well and we know where they come from.
Living things are very good at making protein from amino acids. Chemists also are able to make proteins...

In 1869 we knew that did we? Or did we just have a microscopic substance in pus. My point is not whether it was there but the fact we once knew nothing about it.

Are you suggesting that Miescher had a clear conception of the structure of that microscopic substance or a clear idea of how it operated? Are you suggesting we always knew how DNA worked and gave the nobel prize to Crick and Watson for sharp suits? Are you really not understanding my argument - which is that just because we don't know something does not falsify it? Just cos we do not know yet how the first life arose doesn't mean it didn't happen. We knew nothing about DNA once, that didn't mean it wasn't there.

So what I am trying to say is that there are lots of things we have discovered. But before they were discovered we did not know about them. That did not mean, as you seem to suggest with abiogenesis, that they didn't exist/happen. There was a point in our history where we did not know anything about DNA. Now we are at a point where we do not yet know fully about abiogenesis.

Just cos we once did not know or have any conceivable notion of what Mieschers microscopic substance was did not mean it was therefore impossible. Just because we didn't know it was a double helix at some point does not mean it wasn't. So just because we do not yet have a complete picture of the origin of life - that does not mean it is impossible, or didn't happen or has been falsified. It means we are at a point where we don't know! Do you understand that? It's a new thing to be discovered like DNA once was.

Not even the first steps have been found...

Even if you were remotely correct - look above. At some point in our history we did not have any idea that DNA was the mechanism by which traits were passed on, didn't have the remotest clue what the first steps in heritability were. At that point we would have been in the dark and possibly exploring many, many avenues. That was not falsification tho was it. It was a gap in knowledge. Just llike abiogenesis is, a gap in knowledge. And you are squeezing God into that gap in knowledge. And he will be squeezed out.

cathy wrote:
As for abiogenesis - we know somehow somewhere that it happened.

Correction... we know that living things come from living things.

For quite some time living things have come from living things so what is your point? I assume you're trying to suggest life from non life or partial life is impossible which really screws up genesis as well. I believe even there living things came from non living dust and words.

We know that living things come from living things now but at some point there was no life, now there is. So that stupid comment that living things come from living things has not always been correct has it? Even genesis obsessed creationists accept that life began. Do you understand that? Scientists are looking for that point not what happens now! Understand?

Have you understood the arguments now. Basically at some point things we know well now we did not know - got that. The example I used was DNA cos you'd used it - it could have been anything.

Just cos we did not know those things - like the structure of DNA - did not mean they didn't exist, were impossible, were falsified. It just meant not known yet. Got that?

Many false starts and errors would have paved the road to knowledge eg Crick and Watson built some seriously dodgy models. That did not mean DNA was impossible or falsified. No matter how many false starts it was the same we just didn't know - understood that?

Lots of prior knowledge was required to get to that point of understanding. Hundreds of years of chemistry for example or biology. Darwin and Mendal as well.

Now try to understand that abiogenesis is just at the point where we are unclear how it progressed or began as of yet, so lots of starts are possible. Yes there will be false starts. But like DNA that does not make it impossible or falsify it or anything else you claim. It is like we are closer to Meischer than Crick and Watson. Now do you understand the point? I cannot explain it in a simpler way - not knowing something does not mean its impossible. And we know it happened cos we have life where once there was none.

And none of that answers my question - what in know chemistry proves it impossible? Nor the point that it has no bearing whatsoever on what came after life began, evolution.

[cathy]

You have not undertood the problem. The problem is were did the information come from to make the machines of life (the smallest unit of which is the living cell) .

You haven't understood mine or anyone elses questions - what machines? what information. Abiogenesis is looking very hard for the origins of life, and how we get to the living cell. You witter on about machines and information but don't define what the hell you mean. Do you mean cells and DNA or what? What are you on about? How can you call ID science when it can't even work out what the hell it means by information.

Currently there is no scientific answer to that question.

There are hypotheses, there is research and the researchers have defined what they are looking for at each stage, eg XNA. They are not waffling madly about vague undefined machines and information.

And you are right YECs / ID proponents do not have a scientifically testable hypothesis either.

They haven't got anything at all. And researchers have got scientifically testable hypotheses, so the either should not be in that sentence.

The best we can do with todays science is detect design (the purposeful arrangement of parts, that would not self-assemble from the starting materials).

You haven't clearly defined how the hell you can detect design. How the hell do you detect the purposeful arrangement of parts that would not self assemble from the starting materials? The fact they are there at all means they have assembled from the starting materials so how the hell do you detect the purposeful bit?

Doing all that without any reference at all to the concensus theory of evolution renders the whole thing meaningless. And if you consider how such things could have evolved you lose the ID/prposeful/design detection bit because, whether you believe in evolution or not, you can always propose an evolutionary pathway meaning your whole idea fails and is dumb!!!

Why don't you just say we're looking for magic and stop pretending.

[Roger Stanyard]

Having said that the average sample of earth (soil) does have all the ingredients needed to make a living cell.

Wow! What an insight. So all one needs to do is breath into a lump of earth and, bingo, it's suddenly a perfect man.

[cathy]

Wow! What an insight. So all one needs to do is breath into a lump of earth and, bingo, it's suddenly a perfect man.

Well thats worth knowing.

[marcsurtees]

All the published research on this subject has failed to demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.

Cathy has hit the nail on the head here, Marc. You seem to equate 'don't know' with 'proven false'.

Not proven is probably the fairest way to describe the hypothesis that life arises spontaneously from chemicals.
Until there is a mechanism it remains an unproven hypothesis.
The analogy with the structure of DNA is misleading. Yes, DNA and its structure was of course unknown until it was discovered. But it was discovered and a structure was determined.
The hypothesis that live arose spontaneously is just that, an unproven hypothesis, based on a naturalistic paradigm.
And to date there is no evidence that it is possible. In fact all attempts to find a mechanism have failed, so to be strictly accuarate it is the various theories about mechanisms that have been falsified.

[marcsurtees]

Currently there is no scientific answer to that question.

There are hypotheses, there is research and the researchers have defined what they are looking for at each stage, eg XNA. They are not waffling madly about vague undefined machines and information.

That is like saying that we do not where the program comes from but we have floppy discs, compact discs, hard drives, flash drives, DVDs .. to store that information.

[marcsurtees]

You have not undertood the problem. The problem is were did the information come from to make the machines of life (the smallest unit of which is the living cell) .

You haven't understood mine or anyone elses questions - what machines?

The cell is a (living) machine made up of 1000 of other (biomolecular) machines.