The Statement of Chemistry on the Origin of Life

American Thinker.com ^ | September 26, 2017 | James Clinton

[Kaslin]

In his August 1954, Scientific American article, "The Origin of Life," Nobel Prize winning Harvard Biologist George Wald stated,

"One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

What is "the magnitude of this task" that reasonably renders a natural origin of life "impossible?" Dr. Wald states,

"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis."

The processes of interest include building proteins, DNA, RNA, and lipids. Nature does not engage in the "processes" of building these life-essential molecules (synthesis); Nature, rather, dismantles them (dissolution), if they exist at all.

Why? Nature inexorably proceeds towards "equilibrium" (Chemical Equilibrium), the most stable state. For example, the most stable state for amino acids in Nature is individual amino acids, not proteins.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "...we also laugh ourselves into fatugue with your every post."

Demonstrating yet again your brilliant scientific cognition, beyond the scope of mere mortals like the above mentioned Newton or Einstein.
Even from here, I'm blinded by such brilliance.

editor-surveyor: "Cognition obviously passed you by."

Today I *cognate* the Nobel Prize committee, in homage to your brilliant scientific expressions, will be taking away the crown from Big O, and in the same spirit and for the same reasons as him, it will grant you, editor-surveyor, Zero's Nobel Prize, in mockery.

not

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "Well; one CAN 'believe' in science; as long as they are looking for an answer to some puzzling (insert blank here) they are trying to figure out."

Strictly defined, natural-science is not about "belief". much less about other religious terms sometimes used here.

• A hypothesis is merely a suggested explanation thought to be consistent with evidence, but not strongly confirmed.
  
• A confirmed theory is generally accepted, but only pending confirmed observations or a better explanation which might falsify it.
  
• A confirmed observation is called a fact, which brings us to your question:

Elsie: "When the believe becomes knowledge; is it still known as 'science'?"

If "the believe" was never scientifically supported, then certain "knowledge" may not necessarily be either.

[UCANSEE2]

First, Thank you for your responses.

Now, what keeps an electron orbiting it’s nucleus ?

[sparklite2]

You didn’t answer my question.
How is that negative gravity?

[papertyger]

So, I take it you favor the type of scientific exactitude practiced by other posters here, this one, for example:...

Such posters are not posturing to give legitimate sources: you are.

As I said, this is an old tactic from avocational evolutionists, play scientific purist until the argument gets down to the "nuts and bolts," then throw out some supposedly confuting reference buried in sources that require far more training than the advocate has to falsify.

If you can't summarize and defend the thesis, you're claiming a certain street exists then throwing a phone book to the opposition to "prove you wrong."

That is NOT how legitimate participants in a debate behave.

[papertyger]

All such books provide some review of the history of "rival conjectures", along with presenting the latest findings & ideas.

In order to be legitimate, the rival conjectures must be appropriate to the "current thesis," not its historical antecedents.

It is THIS KIND of rhetorical "sleight-of-hand" that pricks the suspicions of even those who no credentials with which to evaluate the evidence.

Furthermore, I challenge the assertion that further "stirring of the pot" is "progress" until a meal is served. The history of science is replete with such "progress" in refining failed paradigms.

Who could forget the seminal work Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931?

[bert]

However given the proper habitat, the outliers persist

Your thoughts are static and do not allow for change

[editor-surveyor]

.
Our origin is far beyond “science” to explain.

Science cannot explain what it cannot examine.

Your inability to grasp that fact leaves you playing science groupie with a permanent blindfold.

We’ve had dozens like you here, and like you, they also fail to see how foolish they look.
.

[21twelve]

“I’m certain many scientists, past & present, shared Newton’s views, demonstrating that it’s not necessary to be an atheist to work in science.”

My dad (a Christian) once asked a friend of his that was a pioneer in the early radar in WWII (and then into other ground-breaking things) and a strong Christian how that worked - the science and religion aspect. The guy replied “The more I learn and discover in the sciences, the more I learn and discover how great God is!”

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Such posters are not posturing to give legitimate sources: you are."

No, they chose mockery as a superior form of understanding to mere scientific observations & explanations.
And you're OK with that, right?
Then you should look at my posts as a form of mockery, utterly superior to mere science or reason, and requiring no real supporting data.
I mean, if it's good enough for the goose, why not the gander?

papertyger: "As I said, this is an old tactic from avocational evolutionists, play scientific purist until the argument gets down to the 'nuts and bolts,' then throw out some supposedly confuting reference buried in sources that require far more training than the advocate has to falsify."

Seriously, none of the books I've recommended here require advanced training to read & comprehend.
They're all written at the level of somewhat informed laymen, providing history & overviews without going too deep into the scientific "nuts & bolts".
They do provide their own references for more serious students.

papertyger: "If you can't summarize and defend the thesis, you're claiming a certain street exists then throwing a phone book to the opposition to "prove you wrong."
That is NOT how legitimate participants in a debate behave."

I'm surprised, but glad, to see you consider the mockers on this thread not legitimate.
I only wish you'd tell them directly yourself, instead of as a bank-shot through yours truly, BroJoeK.

Seriously, many posters on this thread seem to have no idea where the science is today, as opposed to ideas of, say, George Wald in 1954.
Read some recent books and you'll be better informed.

Again seriously, as for answering the sharpest of your sharp-shooter questions, I would first ask why, while being uninformed about real science, you'd consider such questions legitimate?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "In order to be legitimate, the rival conjectures must be appropriate to the 'current thesis,' not its historical antecedents. "

But you seem locked in the past, in 1954 with George Wald.
Why wouldn't you first like to learn where the science has gone in the past 63 years?
My guess is that alone will answer some of your sharp-shooter questions.

But nobody pretends that science today can answer every question, far from it.
Just more than George Wald in 1954.

papertyger: "I challenge the assertion that further 'stirring of the pot' is 'progress' until a meal is served.
The history of science is replete with such 'progress' in refining failed paradigms."

So, I take it you believe there's been 63 years of "stirring the pot" since George Wald in 1954?
And you are certain of this because you refuse to read any recent books on the subject?

Sure, that makes sense.

not

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Our origin is far beyond “science” to explain.
Science cannot explain what it cannot examine."

If that were true then nobody could ever be convicted of a crime based on CSI type evidence.

editor-surveyor: "Your inability to grasp that fact leaves you playing science groupie with a permanent blindfold.
We’ve had dozens like you here, and like you, they also fail to see how foolish they look."

Obviously, for people like yourself who believe mockery is vastly superior to mere natural explanations of confirmed observations, the world itself must seem "foolish", fit only for scorn & mockery.

But who is the real fool?

[BroJoeK]

21twelve: "The more I learn and discover in the sciences, the more I learn and discover how great God is!"

Thanks again, my view exactly, in a nut shell.

[UCANSEE2]

When you look at that image, what do you see ?

[papertyger]

So, I take it you believe there's been 63 years of "stirring the pot" since George Wald in 1954?

I'd suggest your studious avoidance of providing even the shirt-tail equivalence of an abstract for some unprecedented discovery addressing abiogenesis demonstrates you're sticking with the rope-a-dope strategy I suspect.

As for your apparent incredulity at my skepticism, it's not as if such a state of affairs is unprecedented in the history of science.

Prior to Einstein, the prevailing opinion of physics was that there was nothing left but further refinement of "measurements." I certainly do not deny there have been grand discoveries in the biological sciences, but if there has been progress in abiogenesis, I've yet to hear of it aside from those proposing such nonsensical magics as "life is cooked into matter at the quantum level."

I suggest that if there were indeed some "Relativity" level breakthrough, the layman would not be able to avoid hearing about it's implications, rather than advocates avoiding elaboration of their esoterica.

[papertyger]

But nobody pretends that science today can answer every question, far from it. Just more than George Wald in 1954.

I think it important reinforce the point YOU are the one questioning the author's thesis, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate what has substantively changed from George Wald's original comments as opposed to the author's maintaining nothing has substantively changed with regard to said thesis.

Any other response from you apart from addressing this dynamic would be prima facie evidence of obfuscation on your part.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “If that were true then nobody could ever be convicted of a crime based on CSI type evidence.” <<

Misdirection!

Your statement is completely false.

[sparklite2]

I’ll answer your question when you’ve answered mine.
I asked if you’d ever seen negative gravity and
you posted a picture of what looks like a quasar.
Is a quasar powered by negative gravity?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ as for answering the sharpest of your sharp-shooter questions, I would first ask why, while being uninformed about real science, you'd consider such questions legitimate?” <<

You have yet to even bump into “real Science” in the dark by accident.

What you push as “real science” is mere manipulation of guesses about the un-seeable.
.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I'd suggest your studious avoidance of providing even the shirt-tail equivalence of an abstract for some unprecedented discovery addressing abiogenesis..."

If it's too much to ask papertyger to read a whole book, then perhaps this "shirt-tail equivalence of an abstract" covering abiogenesis will serve?

papertyger: "...demonstrates you're sticking with the rope-a-dope strategy I suspect. "

"Rope a dope"?
"Rope a dope" suggests I'm trying to get you to throw your best arguments at me, but that's not it at all.
I'm only hoping to entice you to learn something that's actually accurate about science today, as opposed to, say, 63 years ago.

papertyger: "I certainly do not deny there have been grand discoveries in the biological sciences, but if there has been progress in abiogenesis, I've yet to hear of it aside from those proposing such nonsensical magics as 'life is cooked into matter at the quantum level.' "

That's exactly why I've made the effort to look up some basic references for you.
Consider: just an hour or two study of the link above will bring you up-to-date with the basics of abiogenesis thinking.
If you follow the various links in that article, it could take another couple of hours, and then there'd be no need for you to further embarrass yourself spouting nonsense.

In a week or two you could read the books I've recommended and now you'd be pretty knowledgeable of the current state of understanding.
Then there'd be no more need for you to do battle with straw-men from 1954!!

papertyger: "I suggest that if there were indeed some 'Relativity' level breakthrough, the layman would not be able to avoid hearing about it's implications, rather than advocates avoiding elaboration of their esoterica."

Nobody has ever suggested such a revolutionary breakthrough as Einstein's relativity theory was.
Instead, we see a long list of baby-step observations/hypotheses toward greater understanding, certainly today far beyond what George Wald could imagine in 1954.