Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

22 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

 

Life still arises from chemical compounds...we are just a bag of chemicals...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I like to guess when we will have understand the DNA completly and we will create other life as we like to.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

 

Life still arises from chemical compounds...we are just a bag of chemicals...

 

Oh, but they are a rehash of the originals.  The original Miller-Urey experiments showed some "promise" but did not display the results they were hoping for.  Mainly, the "living" sludge that was created very quickly died due to the conditions of the atmosphere.  Also, it was determined that the sludge could not have survived for more than a couple of minutes due to the extreme solar radiation the sludge would have been subjected to because of the Earths atmospheric properties.  So, the new experiments (these rehash experiments) were adjusted to compensate for what an atmosphere would need to be comprised of in order for the "living" sludge to survive.  So, again, a failed rehash of the originals.

As the experiments of Miller-Urey, Louis Pasteur and numerous others have come to prove, life could not have come about on Earth all on it's own and then have been genetically improved upon all on it's own...biogenesis and abiogenesis are not possible.

IMHO...life is here on Earth as a result of intelligent design...period!  We may be a sack of chemicals...but, we are a very well crafted blend of chemicals put together by a master chemist!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

 

Not sure why you would find it remarkable.  One does not need to believe in science as it is based on evidence, and as more evidence is discovered, theories can be changes.  Do you find that inferior to the dogma of religion where once one makes an assertion, it cannot be changed regardless of the evidence?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't really see the point of this thread or what it is trying to claim. So what if metabolism can appear in a lab without cells? I don't find that remotely remarkable at all. Metabolism is just a chemical process.

You might as well post a thread titled "Plants can grow in water without soil" (it's called hydroponics) or a thread titled "Chickens can still run around when their heads have been chopped off".

I didn't realise that we had a science forum here on Worthy. Any science info is usually published in the News forums. What exactly has this got to do with Faith vs. Science that it gets posted here? The science bit I can understand but what has it got to do with faith?

 

If it's some lame attempt to discredit faith then it doesn't work. Next we'll be being told that the Atomic number of Scandium is 21 or that the ionic radius of a Thallium ion is similar to that of Potassium, as if we're all going to suddenly start opening our Bibles at such (non) revelations!! :sleep2:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

II didn't realise that we had a science forum here on Worthy.

We don't .  We have a "Faith vs. Science" forum so that if one posts scientific findings, the assumption must be that they are not faithful.  Oh well, I will continue to think, and when I stand before Jesus I'm sure I'll be commended for using the brain with which I was born.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

 

Not sure why you would find it remarkable.  One does not need to believe in science as it is based on evidence, and as more evidence is discovered, theories can be changes.  Do you find that inferior to the dogma of religion where once one makes an assertion, it cannot be changed regardless of the evidence?

 

If you think about it, it takes a great deal of "faith" to believe in Neo-Darwinism as the entire hypothesis breaks down rather quickly under the slightest examination.  Granted, Darwin's "research" does not specifically state where life came from...the title of his book specifically states that he has found "The ORIGIN or Species..."  And, granted, I have not read each and every paper which purports to describe and "prove" the origin of organic life on Earth, I have read enough to know that "natural" circumstances cannot be the answer as purported by Miller-Urey.

I would invite you (and, anyone else for that matter) to read Dr. John F. Ashton's book "Evolution Impossible" for a concise rebuttal of the most fundamental contrivances of Neo-Darwinism and the misguided notion of abiogenesis.

 

If all scientists believed in the "goo to you" hypothesis as stated by abiogenesis then ALL scientists would be Atheists.  Clearly, all scientists are not Atheists.  I, quite frankly, find the dogma of science (where the origin of life is concerned) to be inferior as there has be incalculable research devoted to an hypothesis that has seen NO advancement since the inception of the idea. There have been numerous ideas postulated, numerous anecdotes put forward, but not a single shred of evidence has been found to provide the answer that Atheists are hoping for.

Edited by Celticman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings jerry,

 

if one posts scientific findings, the assumption must be that they are not faithful.  Oh well, I will continue to think, and when I stand before Jesus I'm sure I'll be commended for using the brain with which I was born.                                                                                                    posted by jerryR34

That's not fair....I don't assume that you are not faithful,jerry.......that is between you & our Lord and He knows your heart.Once upon a time my profession was all about the sciences and it only lead me to an even more solid foundation in my faith,,,,,,I questioned everything,studied,researched & found Gods Word to be irrefutable & inerrant,,,,,which I am sure God used these things to draw me unto Himself.......So,jerry,I,for one......am not here to assume anything about you .......God Bless you,keep using that brain of yours but keep your heart open for Wisdom!

                                                                                                                                                                           With love-in Christ,Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First,

 

As I alluded to (some time ago in this very thread) Abiogenesis is impossible via "Naturalistic" Processes.

 

DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" (just ONE) NEVER ever spontaneously Polymerize from outside an Already Existing Cell from amino's and nucleotides, Respectively.  That's just the Hardware!

 

Second,

 

I thought science was in the business of Observing Phenomenon then attempting to explain Causation and validating the process thru Experimentation?

 

You have: RNA World, Lipid World, Clay World, Bubble World et al, what world are they living in?  They are attempting to explain something (Abiogenesis) that has NEVER been OBSERVED.  Moreover, it has been VALIDATED Scientifically.....that Life only comes from Pre-Existing Life (SEE: Law of Biogenesis in 1864).

Is this Science in reverse..."ecneicS"? Can somebody please show Life coming from Non-Life....if not, The Inquiry is INVALID per the Scientific Method.  Nobody in the History of the World has ever OBSERVED it.  This inquiry that they've "conjured" is Tantamount to:

 

1. Attempting to explain mechanistically the exothermic pathway of Phlogiston.
2. Attempting to explain the Tectonic Plate movements on the Planet Vulcan.
3. Attempting to describe the chemistry of Lead morphing into Gold (Alchemy)
4. evolution
5. Big Bang
6. Black Holes

What do all these have in common?.... Phogiston, Vulcan, Alchemy, evolution, Big Bangs, Black Holes?  Neither has been OBSERVED and each has been "De-bunked" as "so-called" Theories.  More importantly, how can you invalidate something that has never been observed?  It can't be falsified!!  If it can't be falsified...it's meaningless!

 

All this (RNA, Lipid, Bubbles, et al) is, is a TEXTBOOK: "Argument from Ignorance" (Fallacy)----the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false.

 

And they're manipulating it in a LAB!  They're trying to prove it takes "No Intelligence" for life to arise...... by using Intelligence!! :huh:

 

Third,  Information!!

 

DNA is the Death Knell for evolution or any Naturalistic explanation.

 

The Genetic "CODE" is Software it's Immaterial.  Examine the Chemical Structure...where's the Information?  It's like examining the Motherboard/Microchips/Circuitry in an attempt to divine what Software Program is running....

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

 

The "CODE"/ message transcends the properties of the medium.

 

When you sit down @ the computer do you ever struggle with who/what Programmed it?  :mgdetective:

 

Where does "CODE" (Encrypted) come from?  In the History of Mankind has Nature ever sent a Message?  To Source and Send Information requires Sentience and Intelligence:

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design (Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

Can it be Falsified? Yep, only Two:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

This is really just "fog a mirror" reasoning.

 

(Matthew 11:25) "At that time Jesus answered and said,  I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Suppose science ever does manage to create life in the lab.  (Don't hold your breath, btw.)

Do you think that would somehow prove that God does not exist?

No, my friend.

All that will have been proven is that God did, just as He said, begin with the dust of the ground.

 

Now, when science can begin with a total vacuum...a "nothingness"...and will it's own dust into existence...

 

well, then you might have a case.

 

Let us know when that happens...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First,

 

As I alluded to (some time ago in this very thread) Abiogenesis is impossible via "Naturalistic" Processes.

 

DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" (just ONE) NEVER ever spontaneously Polymerize from outside an Already Existing Cell from amino's and nucleotides, Respectively.  That's just the Hardware!

Please expand on this sans creationist website references and bible quotes.

 

thanks

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

First,

 

As I alluded to (some time ago in this very thread) Abiogenesis is impossible via "Naturalistic" Processes.

 

DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" (just ONE) NEVER ever spontaneously Polymerize from outside an Already Existing Cell from amino's and nucleotides, Respectively.  That's just the Hardware!

Please expand on this sans creationist website references and bible quotes.

 

thanks

 

How many time need it be explained that this is a Christian Ministry site, and trying to block believers stating their case while using scripture just won't happen? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Sorry, I'm not tring to block anybody, and do not have that power.  I'm just trying to keep it to a scientific method based discussion which only deals with the natural and not super natural.  If creationism is viable in a scientific- method based argument what I am asking should not get me chastised.

 

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sorry, I'm not tring to block anybody, and do not have that power.  I'm just trying to keep it to a scientific method based discussion which only deals with the natural and not super natural.  If creationism is viable in a scientific- method based argument what I am asking should not get me chastised.

You, by your statement tried to direct the thread in the direction you wish it to go?

 

Allow those that may be interested in partaking in this thread to voice their own opinions, just as you have been allowed to state yours is all that is asked.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Sorry, I'm not tring to block anybody, and do not have that power.  I'm just trying to keep it to a scientific method based discussion which only deals with the natural and not super natural.  If creationism is viable in a scientific- method based argument what I am asking should not get me chastised.

You, by your statement tried to direct the thread in the direction you wish it to go?

 

Allow those that may be interested in partaking in this thread to voice their own opinions, just as you have been allowed to state yours is all that is asked.

 

OK, but I have seen too many threads here derailed from the OP.   Again, I have no power other than requesting parameters on the threads I start. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

First,

 

As I alluded to (some time ago in this very thread) Abiogenesis is impossible via "Naturalistic" Processes.

 

DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" (just ONE) NEVER ever spontaneously Polymerize from outside an Already Existing Cell from amino's and nucleotides, Respectively.  That's just the Hardware!

Please expand on this sans creationist website references and bible quotes.

 

thanks

 

 

 

======================================================================================================

 

DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" NEVER ever form "Naturally" from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. 

 

It's Basic Chemistry.

 

 

(Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 

(Colossians 1:16-17) "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  {17} And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

 

(Revelation 4:11) "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

It's Basic Chemistry.

 

 

(Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 

(Colossians 1:16-17) "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  {17} And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

 

(Revelation 4:11) "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

 

What in basic chemistry would lead you to the story of Christ without scripture?  If you can't answer that, then basic chemistry is not proof of Christ and you are bastardizing both.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

==============================================================================================

 

 

What in basic chemistry would lead you to the story of Christ without scripture?  If you can't answer that, then basic chemistry is not proof of Christ and you are bastardizing both.

 

Nothing.  The real question is why on earth would you create such a convoluted Strawman (Fallacy)??...do you prime the Flamethrower right before or just after you conjure these? 

 

I don't conclude anything whatsoever in a vacuum.  You must also have the ability to evaluate multiple lines of evidence and coalesce them into one coherent stream of thought to reach a logically sound conclusion.   How does Chemistry/Biochemistry fit in?  Well....

 

1.  DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" NEVER ever form "Naturally" from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.  (It's Basic Chemistry)

 

2.  DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!  In the History of The World repeated Hundreds of Millions of Times......"CODE" always 100% of the time without failure when traced backed to it's source....comes from Intelligence.

 

Then....

 

You only have 2 choices: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

 

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).  It's better stated as: either Randomness or Intelligent Design Created us and the Universe. This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

Then.....

 

Logically, there can only be "One" CREATOR.

 

Then, I follow these (You remember this): 

 

 

Back to your query... and a comment.

 

Me: "DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" NEVER ever form "Naturally" from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.  That's just the Hardware!"  (It's Basic Chemistry)

 

You: "Please expand on this sans creationist website references and bible quotes."

 

I liken this to....Whenever you're in Class and the Professor has been teaching a particularly difficult topic for multiple sessions, but you know some people have been daydreaming through parts... then one day they say, "OK, Test tomorrow, any questions".  Most intuitively know they are caught in a dilemma; "a pickle" using the parlance of our time; Why?  Well, depending on the length and magnitude of the daydreaming shenanigans, Once they ask a Question....The Jig is Up.  Because the Professor and everyone in the Class will know immediately right where your at.

 

So when you ask this ------->  ""Please expand on this...."  In response to -------->  DNA/RNA or "Functional Proteins" NEVER ever form "Naturally" from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.  That's just the Hardware!"  (It's Basic Chemistry) Well......

 

The Jig is Up.

 

Thanks  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

again with the false dichotomies...(even though you said it wasn't).  Did you even read the article I posted?  Am I to value your scientific opinion over those in the article?  We did that centuries ago, it was called the dark ages when the powers said that things can't happen and science proved them wrong.  I don't see the logic in you argument that there can be only one creator...you are building your own logic there. 

 

from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

 

Claim CB015:

DNA needs certain proteins in order to replicate. Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 47-48.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 45.

Response:

  1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

References:

  1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
  2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
  3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
  4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
  5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thread closed. This site is a ministry to draw people to God, not push them away and provide the means in which to diminish our beliefs. The link you provided states "This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0