Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.
Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?
ORGANIC: adjectiveSo, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?
"relating to or derived from living matter":
Chemistry relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with inorganic [adjective denoting "not consisting of or deriving from living matter"].
I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.
As Robert Godwin has noted, "In their attempt to account for the origins of life (and discourage creationists), biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter. so now they talk about a period of 'pre-life' preparing the way for the emergence of life." And yet,
Really, this kind of "junk metaphysics" is an attempt to sneak the principle of natural selection into the universe before there is a biology for it to operate on. In any event, it makes no philosophical sense, for the term "pre-life" assumes something — life — which supposedly did not exist and could not have been predicted by merely looking at its molecular constituents. If a period of pre-life did in fact prefigure life, then it is unnecessary to qualify it as "pre-," because it was part of the process of life and therefore indistinguishable from it. In other words, if we wish to be intellectually honest, we must place "pre-life" on the life side of the matter/life divide, not on the matter side, unless we fatuously rename life "post-matter."...The "organic molecule" DNA seems to have something to do with the expression of that "dynamic wholeness" in living organisms. But many if not most scientists today believe that "wholes" are merely the "sum of their parts," and nothing more.
If the materialistic explanation of life is true, it can't be true: matter is dead, life is matter. therefore life is dead. Nevertheless, most scientists take it for granted that life does not exist as anything separate and distinct from matter. In the fashionable reductionist view, this is simply the way it must be: biology is in the end nothing more than an unlikely but mildly interesting property of physics. (Why interesting? Why should matter be interested in anything?) But this is hardly a suitable explanation for such a profound mystery. Rather, it is a "question-begging fallacy" that "demands an initial acceptance of the doctrine of naturalism before any explanation is offered." In other words, only matter is ultimately real, so that life may be reduced to, and fully explained by, the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules.... Knowledge must always be a one-way, bottom-up affair:
[Godwin cites Robert Rosen here], "One must never pass to a larger system in trying to understand a given one, but must invoke simpler sub-systems.... From simple to complex is only a matter of accretion of simple, context-independent parts." [emphasis mine]But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.
In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.
But I believe that "chance remains a glorious cover-up for ignorance." I also note that strict determinism "is refuted by the very freedom whereby it is posited." As Godwin cites Barfield: "Chance, in fact = no hypothesis."
No wonder we "creationists" can never get on the same page with "Darwinist materialists."
Thank you ever so much, dear tpanther, for your astute observation, and for writing!
Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.
I answered how DNA can form from the atoms that are already present. All it takes is presence of the atoms and an energy source, and the atoms will assemble into a large variety of molecules. The atoms already exist all over the earth, where they coalesced from space dust many billions of years ago. The energy comes from the sun and from radioactive decay on the earth.
According to physics, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (although, to a limited extent, matter can be converted to energy). So, as for where the atoms came from in the first place, some 14 billion years ago, I'm not concerning myself with that. The big bang? I dunno.
Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?
An inorganic molecule does not contain the correct atoms to be an organic molecule, and will never become organic.
By scientific definition, organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen. It is really that simple.
It was once thought that organic compounds were strictly associated with living organisms, and that is how they got their name. However, there is no need for the presence of living things in order for organic molecules to form: the only requirements are the presence of carbon, hydrogen, other elements, and an energy source. Carbon forms a highly diverse set of molecules according to the laws of physics.
Examples of organic molecules include benzene, DNA, methane, ethanol, isopropanol, ether, aldehydes, ketones, etc. As you can see, many of these aren't derived from living organisms, and in fact, are quite poisonous.
So, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?
I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.
As I just explained, organic molecules are not intrinsically alive. And there is no way to turn an inorganic molecule into an organic one. Sure, you can use an inorganic molecule in a chemical reaction which produces an organic molecule--but you destroy the inorganic molecule in the process. And by simply doing a chemical reaction, you do not cause a thing to be alive.
Here is an example of a chemical reaction involving organic and inorganic components:
CH4 + Cl2 + energy --> CH3Cl + CH2Cl2 + CHCl3 + CCl4 + HCl
The Cl2, CCl4, and HCl are all inorganic molecules. The rest are organic.
But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.
Biology is absolutely governed by physics. Within this universe, there is no escaping the invariant laws of physics. My own discipline, biochemistry, contains the subdiscipline of biophysics, which is devoted to studying the physics of biochemical processes. Not that I can escape studying the physics of the living processes that I study--but biophysicists go into far more depth than I do.
Now, as for what quality it is that imparts life to a conglomerate of chemical processes, I cannot answer that. In other discussions, where I attempt to describe prenatal humans, I always say that asking when human life begins is the wrong question, since the property of being alive is present in the egg and sperm before they fuse to become a zygote, as a result of their being formed by the mother and father. No one has ever seen something that is not alive become alive. Once life departs, it does not return.
The "organic molecule" DNA seems to have something to do with the expression of that "dynamic wholeness" in living organisms. But many if not most scientists today believe that "wholes" are merely the "sum of their parts," and nothing more.
DNA is not what makes us alive, although it is necessary for life to exist. It is only a molecule. It is not, itself, alive. If I want, I can make DNA through chemical reactions in the lab--but that is a rather tedious process, and a number of companies will gladly make any (small) DNA molecule that I specify, for a small fee. I can extract DNA from any kind of living organism. I can put DNA into many kinds of living organisms, and they will use it. There really is nothing all that special about it, in a chemical/physical sense.
In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.
No, they do not give us an explanation of life. But they do give us a whole lot of information about the physical properties of living things.
But I believe that "chance remains a glorious cover-up for ignorance." I also note that strict determinism "is refuted by the very freedom whereby it is posited." As Godwin cites Barfield: "Chance, in fact = no hypothesis."
I don't know who Godwin or Barfield are, but that quote is just plain incorrect. If, instead of "chance", I use the term "probability", then it is an integral part of hypothesizing. It is necessary for interpretation of scientific data. Without accounting for "chance", there cannot be science.
I can't speak to what the answer is as well as exDemMom has. (And I'm disappointed that you can only answer "yada yada yada" to a post she obviously spent a lot of time and thought on, and that you might be able to learn from if you were willing. Talk about "without grace"!) But I can offer my own reactions to your post (which, yes, I read and understood--it wasn't that complicated).
You quote Godwin (not a biologist or biochemist, I note, but a psychologist) as saying that "biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter." But he is begging the question: he's assuming without proof that "the" distincition between life and matter is clear and discernible. What if it's not? You may have heard of the ideas that proteins or RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecules. Is a self-replicating RNA molecule alive? Can you or Godwin explain why a rock is just matter, and a self-replicating RNA molecule is just matter, but single-cell, asexually reproducing algae is alive? If RNA is still used in living creatures, would it really be wrong to call self-replicating RNA "pre-life"?
As you can see, I don't dismiss the question. I'm comfortable saying, "I don't know." I also don't know why the sun's magnetic field is rebuilding asymmetrically this time. But that doesn't lead me to assert that because science can't answer the question right now, it must be because God has all of a sudden decided to reach in and tweak His creation.