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.

[aquila48]

It’s not just the spontaneous creation of individual complex molecules that is next to impossible, but it’s the simultaneous creation of multiple molecules that work together to create biological systems with specific purposes that make the idea of spontaneous creation totally absurd.

[papertyger]

Indeed.

The “post turtle” of abiogenesis defies materialist explanation. Unfortunately, it does NOT “actively” refute the materialist’s fallacious contrivances.

[BroJoeK]

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

papertyger: "None. Zero. Zip.
The Scientific/Cultural mandarins gave up on the question as unknowable and irrelevant."

I think not.
In fact, growth in understandings of biology & chemistry in the past 63 years has been as great as in any other scientific field, for examples:

What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology Addy Pross, 2012

The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life Nick Lane, 2015

A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth Ward & Kirschvenk, 2015

[papertyger]

I’ll betcha you can’t find even ONE “rival conjecture” in ANY of those three works...

[papertyger]

BTW, we are well familiar with the tactic of making a claim, then offering an undifferentiated “phone book” instead of a falsifiable argument.

If you can’t give a falsifiable summary, you are simply engaging in hearsay.

[grey_whiskers]

You're an idiot.

[PUGACHEV]

Thank you!

[editor-surveyor]

.
And with random probability in charge, amino acids would occur equally as right and left isomers, but only the left version are present in living organisms.

Just one of the trillions of barriers to random occurance of life.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ 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.” <<

Good!

Now you can get to work on your next PhD. Just prepare your dissertation as a proof.

Simple, right? And nobody has done it yet; the whole universe awaits your effort.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Pathetic pulp fiction, and nothing more.
.

[Zeneta]

FWIW,

The guy that wrote the first book on this subject, Chemical Origins of life, I forgot his name, later came out to say he was wrong and it’s impossible.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t deterred many others to take the cause.

[sparklite2]

The intermolecular force equals gravity?
Please explain.

[Lurker]

You’re confusing gravity with molecular bonding.

L

[sparklite2]

I always thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics stated that natural processes tended toward greater randomness (entropy).
------------------------------
It's true.  The universe, as a closed system, will eventually die of entropy.
-------------------------
That would preclude the organization required for production of the chemicals of life.
------------------
You believe this because the poltroons who tell you this leave out the crucial predicate, ie, a closed system. The addition of solar energy to the earth makes it 'not closed.'

[UCANSEE2]

All I am saying is that both are held together by unknown forces.

[UCANSEE2]

You’re confusing gravity with molecular bonding.

Exactly how are they different ?

[sparklite2]

You should really stop digging.

[UCANSEE2]

You should really stop digging.

Surely then you can explain the force that holds galaxies together and how it is different from the force that holds molecules together.

[sparklite2]

The intermolecular force is a balance between the repulsive and attractive force of the molecules. When is the last time you heard about repulsive gravity?

[CurlyDave]

All I am saying is that both are held together by unknown forces.

It is doubtless true that these forces are unknown to you.

Fortunately, their nature is known to some of us, and they are not the same forces. And, no it is not possible to explain the nature of these forces in a few words on an internet forum. But if you spend 4 years at a good university in chemistry and physics, followed by another 3-5 years in graduate school, again in chemistry, physics, and possibly engineering, you may come to have some understanding...