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.

[raygunfan]

and yet the worshippers at the Altar of Darwin, have no choice...they must believe in that b.s. to avoid the obvious special creation as told in the bible....

[lurk]

Dawkins poses that genetic outliers, mutations outside the edge of the mainstream of any particular species, are responsible for the very many differences we see in plants and creatures. So it is the creature with the freakish deformity whose contribution to the gene pool creates a change in the species. Add 100,000 freaks and you end up with an orca who was once a wolf (they teach this with serious countenance).

Problem is, nature rewards stability, not instability. Genetic outliers either die due to design flaws, or are not invited to prom night when it is time to reproduce.

[UCANSEE2]

The same thing that keeps amino acids bound into proteins is the same thing that keeps galaxies from flying apart.

[Stosh]

From the article: “For example, the most stable state for amino acids in Nature is individual amino acids, not proteins.”

Actually, I’d expect it’s worse than that - the most stable state for amino acids in a Nature that includes an oxygen-containing atmosphere is as CO2, water and dinitrogen or some nitrogen oxide (which in the absence of life-sustaining processes, where they ultimately end up).

[papertyger]

the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution

Which indelibly taught me "fool" and "stupid" were not synonymous, as in "the fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"

[boycott]

The worshipers at the Altar of Darwin have to take huge leaps of faith.

[Moonman62]

Or it could be creation by the Participatory Anthropic Principle.

[libh8er]

These scientists get too caught up in the chemistry of life. The wonder of life is the intelligent information encoded in the molecules. That information doesn’t just come out of nowhere.

[VanShuyten]

“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.”

And yet for the short time you are alive, you have proteins. Don’t confuse entropy with short-term concentrations of energy and order. When you see that, you can understand how short-term fluctuations over long periods of time can lead to the concentrations of more complex chemicals needed to start life.

And random mutations rarely lead to life-threatening mutations, so a land mammal, over a long period of time, can be an ancestor of an orca.

[papertyger]

Don’t confuse entropy with short-term concentrations of energy and order.

We aren't.

You are confusing flowing water welling up on an obstacle for a river that runs uphill.

[Nevadan]

Thanks for posting

[wbarmy]

And random mutations rarely lead to life-threatening mutations

Name a couple of these random mutations that did not lead to a life threatening mutation. Because every single mutation I have ever heard of kills the host or makes it unlikely to survive in an unprotected environment.

[budj]

I always thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics stated that natural processes tended toward greater randomness (entropy).

That would preclude the organization required for production of the chemicals of life.

[robroys woman]

bkmk

[BroJoeK]

"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...' "

So here we are, 63 years later, a period when many scientific fields have grown by orders of magnitude in understanding (computers come to mind).
Has there still been no progress in "origin of life" studies?

Do Wald's words remain the last on this subject?

I think not.

[papertyger]

Has there still been no progress in "origin of life" studies?

None. Zero. Zip.

The Scientific/Cultural mandarins gave up on the question as unknowable and irrelevant.

[central_va]

"Primordial soup" did not begat life on planet earth.

[raygunfan]

again, it is given up on as ‘unknowable and irrelevant’ because it points to our creator God of the bible, and well, better the devil you know than to admit what is right in front of their atheistic lying faces...

[CurlyDave]

The same thing that keeps amino acids bound into proteins is the same thing that keeps galaxies from flying apart.

?????

Are you telling us that gravity keeps proteins together or are you claiming that chemical bonds keep groups of stars together?