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: "You on the other hand gave us pixie farts and other dreams of evil men."

"pixie farts"? Is that a biblical term, perhaps related to Nephilim (i.e., Gen. 6:4)? Can you cite a chapter & verse for it?

Seriously, natural science is simply an organized effort to understand the natural realm.
As such it has produced some remarkable results.
Of course, you don't have to like science or accept its results, just so long as you don't claim your own views are "scientific".

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "BroJoeK has made it clear to all that he hasn’t the slightest idea what chemistry even is."

editor-surveyor has made it clear to all that he hasn't the slightest intention of engaging in reasoned or civil discussion.
Insults are his sole stock-in-trade and he intends to sell nothing else.

{sigh}

[JohnyBoy]

> Note the key words: “no operative principles in common”.

Wow, someone made an assertion? Well, then it must be true!

Oh wait, it’s not.

Abiogenesis doesn’t actually have any operative principles beyond the idea that non-life->magic->life. Its core idea is life came from non-life which is something we’ve never observed in many, many years of scientific observation and experimentation. It doesn’t prescribe how non-life->life happened any more than spontaneous generation prescribed how non-life->life.

It’s a thoery without any evidence to support it beyond a lot of people asserting that it’s true, IE Dogma. The flim-flam about takes a long time, super special conditions, yadda yadda yadda is just designed to make the theory untestable but still allow idiots to continue spouting it as dogma.

[BroJoeK]

CodeToad: "Go ahead and map that out mathematically and let’s see if 4 billions year has been long enough."

If it took a million steps in a billion years, that would be one step, on average, every thousand years.
What would be the standard deviation on average "years between steps"? A million years? Who knows?

But, we have the advantage of knowing for certain that 4 billion years was plenty long enough for what actually happened.
What exactly that was we don't know in more than general outlines.

We do know much more today that George Wald did in 1954, which is the point of this discussion.

[BroJoeK]

CodeToad: "Childishly believes 4 billion years is a such a long time that all kind of extremely unlikely miracles can occur in such a short time span."

We don't know how many, if any, supernatural miracles were required to produce what we see today.
There may have been many along the way, or just the one, the big one, in the beginning... after which everything else followed naturally.
But science by definition cannot deal with supernatural miracles and so must continue to pursue natural explanations wherever they can be found.

[BroJoeK]

JohnnyBoy: "Abiogenesis doesn’t actually have any operative principles beyond the idea that non-life->magic->life."

Of course it does, but you still refuse to learn anything real about them, right?

JohnnyBoy: "It doesn’t prescribe how non-life->life happened any more than spontaneous generation prescribed how non-life->life."

Wrong again!
And now you've been invited politely to learn something true and yet utterly refuse.
Why is that?

JohnnyBoy: "It’s a thoery without any evidence to support it beyond a lot of people asserting that it’s true, IE Dogma."

But it's not a "theory", much less "dogma", instead abiogenesis is a set of tentative hypotheses covering just a few steps in the many which would be required for chemistry to become life.
Evidence for it is what's found in the geological record or can be reproduced in laboratories.
Nobody imagines abiogenesis is a completely developed, tested and confirmed theory.

But anybody who takes time to learn knows that we are far beyond what George Wald knew in 1954.

[JohnyBoy]

>JohnnyBoy: “And yet not a single reference to any of them shows up in wikipedia.”

>You’re kidding, right?

Not a single reference to any success in creating life from nonliving matter. The last big push on the subject was in the 70s. Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence.

Almost every study since the 70s has been about finding this organic particle here or there and speculation that this particle might have been created in way X that might have led to life. However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven. All that’s required is taking nonlife and turning it into life and bamn Abiogenesis is largely proven.

Since there’s no longer any large scale experimentation going to create life in the lab and the papers published are generally of the type of: Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked, I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma.

[papertyger]

If it's too much to ask papertyger to read a whole book...

It’s displays of pretentious asininity like this that typifies the intellectual duplicity that characterizes your co-apologists. As if an “abstract” (as opposed to a Wikipedia link) is not a standard feature OF EVERY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

I have no interest in refuting all the supercilious posturing you engage in so that we could actually have a substantive debate. I’m perfectly content to drop you into the category of “living examples of the veracity of Planck’s Dictum,” and call it a day.

[BroJoeK]

JohnnyBoy: "Not a single reference to any success in creating life from nonliving matter."

Of course not, we're talking about a hypothesis, one of several, about how life may have originated on Earth.

JohnnyBoy: "The last big push on the subject was in the 70s.
Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence."

In fact, work has continued to this day, as the references and bibliography in the link from my posts #100 and #129 demonstrate.
But nobody claims to have created life in a test-tube, merely to better understand some processes which could.

JohnnyBoy: "However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven."

To my knowledge there was never any "progress in creating life", ever, period.
So you've been doing a ferocious battle, full of sturm & drang, against a straw man.

Why?

JohnnyBoy: " 'Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked,' I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma."

Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.
So why do you lie about it?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I have no interest in refuting all the supercilious posturing you engage in so that we could actually have a substantive debate.
I’m perfectly content to drop you into the category of “living examples of the veracity of Planck’s Dictum,” and call it a day."

Just to be sure I went back & reviewed your posts on this thread.
Without exception, your posts consist of complaints about "posturing", "not legitimate", "slight-of-hand", "rope-a-dope", "obfuscation", "pretentious asininity" & such.
You demand I lay out, in abstract, the case for abiogenesis, but refuse to read the short summaries I linked to which express my opinions better than any I could write.

Now, having exhausted your vocabulary of insult words, you now throw down a cloud of smoke about "Plank's Dictum" and, what, disappear from the stage?

Typical.

[JohnyBoy]

>Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.

There’s actual evidence to support It? Where? Let me check, nope still no evidence life coming from non-life. Lots of speculation but speculation isn’t evidence.

>Of course not, we’re talking about a hypothesis, one of several, about how life may have originated on Earth.

Problem they’ve largerly stopped doing experiments to test hypothesis. Until the 70s they’d come with an idea on how it might work, rig up an experiment in creating life and test it. Null result every time but at least it was science.

Today they no longer bother with the scientific testing and stick to endless speculation, which isn’t science.

[papertyger]

You have steadfastly refused to present your own, or any, testable argument, and you blanche at my assessment of your posturing?

In case you haven’t noticed, “My brother will beat you up” can only go so far before you make an ass of yourself, and annoy your brother.

You are well past that point.

[papertyger]

Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.

I provisionally agree.

The problem is you have no other alternative apart from Creationism.

[BroJoeK]

JohnyBoy: "There’s actual evidence to support It? Where?"

The geological record is consistent in showing life beginning with very simple forms, growing more complex as the eons passed.
How did it begin?
Abiogenesis is one idea, panspermia another and special creation.
This site lists 10 such "theories", except they are not confirmed scientific theories, just hypotheses at best, while divine creation is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

So what, exactly, prevents you from reading & learning more about it?

JohnyBoy: "Today they no longer bother with the scientific testing and stick to endless speculation, which isn’t science."

What you call "speculation" others might name "brain-storming", an essential precursor to scientific hypotheses.
As for more recent experiments, This article from 2010 discusses several.
This article discusses Cech's experiments & findings in RNA.
Fox experiments in amino acids.
Miller-Urey revisited & updated
This 2009 article mentions experimental work of several scientists in the Origin of Life field, including Ellington, Venter, Joyce & Szostak.
This article takes a fairly pessimistic view, including this quote:

"Since a single cell would appear to be the smallest unit that can be said to be alive, proteinoid microspheres may quite justifiably be called protocells, or, life.
These are just the early stages of these types of experiments.
There is every likelihood that within the next couple hundred years man will be able to create self-replicating life of varying forms from purely chemical and natural elements under laboratory conditions. --- Simon Ewins "

A "couple hundred years" sounds like there's much more they don't know than do.
And you disagree with what, exactly?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "You have steadfastly refused to present your own, or any, testable argument, and you blanche at my assessment of your posturing?"

No, in over a dozen posts I've presented many such arguments, which you have steadfastly ignored, preferring to stand back & throw insults at me.

So what, exactly, is your problem?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I provisionally agree.
The problem is you have no other alternative apart from Creationism."

Just in case you missed it before, I believe that God created the heavens, earth and everything on it, and that in the beginning was the Word, with God.
The question natural-science asks is: are there confirmed natural explanations for how God created?
The answer is: so far, not really, just a lot of very interesting hypotheses and experiments.

But many posters here have claimed these scientific hypotheses amount to "theories", "laws", "doctrine", "dogma" or even "religion".
That's all nonsense, so far they're just tentative ideas pending further research & analysis.

[papertyger]

MY problem is that YOU do not know the difference between an “argument,” and an “assertion.”

Making one assertion predicated on another assertion is NOT an “argument.” Therefore, you have yet to make ANY argument WHAT-SO-EVER.

You need to take a break from reading books on science you aren’t qualified to evaluate, and try reading some on the rules of critical thinking.

There’s a really good reason people still know the names of men like Socrates and Plato, you know. You should find out why that is before trying to “enlighten” us poor, benighted, “deplorables.”

[papertyger]

That's all nonsense, so far they're just tentative ideas pending further research & analysis.

Please tell me I have NOT been wasting my time on someone so naive as to not understand the aphorism “a distinction without difference is NO difference!”

You like to read? Fine, I’ve got one for you. Try “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Khun. It has been THE standard for over fifty years dealing specifically with the history and progress of science.

As for your penchant to cavalierly shrug off VALID criticisms, and teenager-like surety of your own “knowing” ... I’m done with you.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "MY problem is that YOU do not know the difference between an 'argument,' and an 'assertion.' "

No your problem is you think throwing insults is the same thing as making an argument, and you done nothing but.

papertyger: "Making one assertion predicated on another assertion is NOT an 'argument.'
Therefore, you have yet to make ANY argument WHAT-SO-EVER."

No, I have addressed issues presented with facts & reason.
You by contrast have done nothing but throw insults.
So it appears to me you have no other arrows in your quiver.

papertyger: "There’s a really good reason people still know the names of men like Socrates and Plato, you know.
You should find out why that is before trying to 'enlighten' us poor, benighted, 'deplorables.' "

So now you magnify insults with pure fantasy, why?
Why is it not enough for you to just state & defend your best case, without throwing out tons & tons of nonsense?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Please tell me I have NOT been wasting my time on someone so naive as to not understand the aphorism 'a distinction without difference is NO difference!' "

So why not just make your case -- show me how there's really no difference -- instead of blasting away with stupid insults?
And of course I know the answer: because there is a real difference, but you can't accept it so substitute insults for honest responses.

papertyger: "As for your penchant to cavalierly shrug off VALID criticisms, and teenager-like surety of your own 'knowing' ... I’m done with you."

But you've made no VALID criticisms, just teenager-like angry insults, as if you knew the whole truth but couldn't lower yourself to say it nicely.
But in fact you don't know the truth, even a small part of it, and that's WHY you blast away with such ridiculous insults.

Anyway, have a blessed day.