The origin of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Rose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The experiment was a failure. It created a mix of both right handed and left handed amino acids. Life is left handed. There are other problems too.
Apparently, in a solution of 100:99::left:right serine, most amino acids undergo a tautomeric shift to the left-handed form, as observed in the lab.

newscientist.com/article/mg19025545.200-righthanded-amino-acids-were-left-behind.html

The words of Cardinal Newman come to mind: “is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed.” (Newman, Letters V24, p77)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
 
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
Mutations occur as a result of quantum events, eg tautomeric shifts, wobble pairing. The wavefunctions that describe these contain multiple probable outcomes, only one of which is selected. This wavefunction collapse is discontinuous and some physicists (Wolfgang Smith, Robert John Russell) have argued that God is continuously creating in the present moment through these events: “[T]his quantum mechanical discontinuity does not arise from an underlying continuity by way of approximation, but proves to be irreducible in principle to any continuous temporal process. …] Continuity, one can say, is indicative of the material substrate, whereas discontinuity is indeed the hallmark of the creative act” (Smith, Quantum Enigma, page 106-7). Of this we read in John: "“My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.” (Jn 5:17)

Hence, God is the efficient cause of both beneficial and deleterious mutations. Of this we read in the book of Job: “We accept good things from God; and should we not accept evil?” (Job 2:10) Also in Isaiah, “I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.” (Is 45:7)

Furthermore, in these good and bad mutations observed in the fossil record and living organisms, the goodness of God is still being made manifest, in His justice and His communication of being to creatures. As Aquinas taught: “Besides, every action and movement are seen to be ordered in some way toward being, either that it may be preserved in the species or in the individual, or that it may be newly acquired [in the species or individual]. Now, the very fact of being is a good, and so all things desire to be. Therefore, every action and movement are for the sake of a good.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, book 3, chapt 3).

Finally, if I may be so bold, I’m concerned that IDvolution will expose the Faith to the ridicule of nonbelievers. The word evolution is fine. From the Latin ex-volvere - to roll out, it implies that some Cause initiates and perpetuates the “rolling out”. The very word suggests an immanent Creator to me.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
 
The experiment was a failure. It created a mix of both right handed and left handed amino acids. Life is left handed. There are other problems too.
The Miller-Urey experiment was a success. It showed that condittions of the primitive Earth were suitable for the formation of amino acids. It was not attempting to show the formation of a chiral (single-handed) mix but just a racemic (both-handed) mix.

Different natural processes can for a chiral mix from the sort of racemic mix produced by the Miller-Urey experiment. See Emergence of a Single Solid Chiral State from a Nearly Racemic Amino Acid Derivative.

Science is always working to solve problems. Please do not assume that a problem that was unsolved in 1952 is still unsolved today.

rossum
 
The statistical likelihood of random mutations and of life emerging from the processes of chance have been consistently shown to be not just improbable but *extremely *improbable
Everyone agrees. Abiogenesis is not a chance process as it is based on chemistry, and chemistry is not a chance process. This is a strawman.
This information is not unspecified but is functionally specified
The ID side has never ever produced a workable definition of either specified information or functionally specified information. What units is it measured in? How can we determine the SI, or FSI, in a given string of DNA?
Efforts to explain a reasonably likely scenario for life by abiotic means have consistently failed
Classic ID-of-the-gaps. Do you really want to base your argument on “science will never …”? Abiogenesis is far from a complete theory, but it is getting less incomplete by the year.
…Today’s origin of life researchers can make no stronger claims for abiogenesis on empirical grounds than could Huxley.
Complete ant utter rubbish. Even just the Miller-Urey experiment shows that we have made empirical progress since Huxley. Huxley had no means of producing amino acids. Since Miller-Urey we can produce racemic amino acids. Since Blackmond we can produce chiral amino acids. We are making slow progress.

rossum
 
Everyone agrees. Abiogenesis is not a chance process as it is based on chemistry, and chemistry is not a chance process.
Do I remember your example of H2O correctly? Water could only occur with these chemicals because other chemicals could not combine in the same formula? My apology if you have to explain it again.

In any case, water is not a chance process because it is based on chemistry. Water has formed in some areas of the earth and not in others. If abiogenesis is not a chance process because it is based on chemistry, does that mean that life formed in some areas of the earth and not in others?

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17
 
Huxley had no means of producing amino acids. Since Miller-Urey we can produce racemic amino acids. Since Blackmond we can produce chiral amino acids. We are making slow progress.

The illusion of progress stems from the fact that the conditions and results of the experiment arose from intelligent design. There cannot even be a simulation of the original abiogenesis except by intelligent design.

So who is kidding whom? 👍
 
Huxley had no means of producing amino acids. Since Miller-Urey we can produce racemic amino acids. Since Blackmond we can produce chiral amino acids. We are making slow progress.

The illusion of progress stems from the fact that the conditions and results of the experiment arose from intelligent design. There cannot even be a simulation of the original abiogenesis except by intelligent design.

So who is kidding whom? 👍
Bingo! 👍
 
Finally, if I may be so bold, I’m concerned that IDvolution will expose the Faith to the ridicule of nonbelievers. The word evolution is fine. From the Latin ex-volvere - to roll out, it implies that some Cause initiates and perpetuates the “rolling out”. The very word suggests an immanent Creator to me.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
Yes, be so bold. IDvolution needs criticism.

Intelligently Designed rolling out, hence IDvolution. The difference being that the script for life was present at the very beginning in the Word. Life started with the building blocks and information to diversify and adapt. ID volution is based on the emerging science.
 
Huxley had no means of producing amino acids. Since Miller-Urey we can produce racemic amino acids. Since Blackmond we can produce chiral amino acids. We are making slow progress.

The illusion of progress stems from the fact that the conditions and results of the experiment arose from intelligent design. There cannot even be a simulation of the original abiogenesis except by intelligent design.

So who is kidding whom? 👍
You are kidding your readers, that is who.

They are experiments in labs so of course they are designed.

Weather forecasters use big computers to model the weather. Does that mean that the real weather is actually run by a Big Computer (All hail Deep Thought!)?

A simulation is not the real thing, it is a simulation of the real thing.

If I can write a computer to simulate God then does that mean that God Himself is also intelligently designed?

rossum
 
They are experiments in labs so of course they are designed.

Except that of course you cannot originate life without a design. Thank you!!! :rolleyes:
 
You are kidding your readers, that is who.

They are experiments in labs so of course they are designed.

Weather forecasters use big computers to model the weather. Does that mean that the real weather is actually run by a Big Computer (All hail Deep Thought!)?

A simulation is not the real thing, it is a simulation of the real thing.

If I can write a computer to simulate God then does that mean that God Himself is also intelligently designed?

rossum
Agreed. A simulation is not the real thing, it is a simulartion of the real thing.

Questions. What are the boundaries of a simulation? What kind of data would be needed to create the simulation of something real? Experimental Simulated Populations come to mind.
 
Yes, be so bold. IDvolution needs criticism.

Intelligently Designed rolling out, hence IDvolution. The difference being that the script for life was present at the very beginning in the Word. Life started with the building blocks and information to diversify and adapt. ID volution is based on the emerging science.
May I also be so bold.😉

Since IDvoution implies a significant difference, perhaps the name should be completely separate from ID.

My own disappointment with ID is that there is very little attention, if any, paid to the origin of the human person. In my humble opinion, it is the human species which is key to the creative power of intelligent design.

Because human nature is spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, body and soul, it is the one and only exhibit of Irreducible Complexity

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Any suggestions?
No.

I have always wanted a one word post.:rotfl:

Seriously, I trust that somehow the name will rise to the surface as we explore the deeper meanings.

Blessings,
granny – title holder of the shortest post
 
They are experiments in labs so of course they are designed.

Except that of course you cannot originate life without a design. Thank you!!! :rolleyes:
You cannot just assume what you want to prove. I agree that you cannot originate a simulation without a design. However, we are not discussing the origin of simulated life, we are discussing the origin of life.

I can design a simulation of clouds. Do real clouds, as opposed to simulated clouds, need a design?

rossum
 
You cannot just assume what you want to prove. I agree that you cannot originate a simulation without a design. However, we are not discussing the origin of simulated life, we are discussing the origin of life.

I can design a simulation of clouds. Do real clouds, as opposed to simulated clouds, need a design?

rossum
The species cloud does not occur on it’s own. It is designed by the process that creates it; it does not emerge out of nothing with no cause.

You could argue that it does not require a conscious designer, but it must be designed nonetheless.
 
You cannot just assume what you want to prove. I agree that you cannot originate a simulation without a design. However, we are not discussing the origin of simulated life, we are discussing the origin of life.

I can design a simulation of clouds. Do real clouds, as opposed to simulated clouds, need a design?

rossum
Patterns can occur naturally. Designs are based on language and symbols. DNA is a language. Designs always contain patterns but natural patterns do not contain symbols or language. The earliest life exhibits hallmarks of design.
 
Since simulations are used in science, is there any criteria for simulations?
What kind of data would be needed to create the simulation of something real? Suppose no one really knew the real thing, e.g., how life originated, including human life, how could a simulartion be created?

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.
 
Minimal genome should be twice the size, study shows

The simplest bacteria need almost twice as many genes to survive than scientists first believed, according to new research published in Nature (30 March 2006).

Bacteria are some of the simplest forms of life and have been studied by scientists trying to identify the smallest collection of genes – or minimal genome – that is needed for maintaining life.
Traditionally scientists have done this by removing, or ‘knocking out’, a series of individual genes from a bacterial genome to see what effect this has on its ability to survive.
They can then infer which genes are essential to the organism, and which are not, to work out which are needed for the minimal genome.
However this knock out approach wrongly removes many of the genes that are essential to the survival of bacteria, according to researchers from Heidelberg (Germany), Manchester (UK), Budapest (Hungary) and Bath (UK).
The researchers made this discovery after developing a new approach to genome modelling which, given the organism’s evolutionary history and knowledge of its surrounding environment, allows them to predict which genes a bacterium’s genome should contain.



“This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product.
“When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene.
“But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead.
“Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.
“In fact, because there are alternative pathways to the same product, by removing either of the genes you make the other essential for survival; each gene deletion reduces the available space for further reduction of the genome.
”Including these alternative pathways into the minimal genome almost doubles its size.”
 
rossum

I can design a simulation of clouds. Do real clouds, as opposed to simulated clouds, need a design?

I get your point. Do you get mine?

The best that can be done by scientists with respect to abiogenesis is to replicate the approximate early conditions that gave rise to life. This replication can never be exact because those original conditions for abiogenesis no longer prevail on the planet. But even a theoretical replication requires extreme aspects of design, I think you must agree.

It is not therefore possible to turn around and say, should results be fortuitous for the spontaneous appearance of life as the result of an intelligently designed experiment, that life could appear fortuitously and without design. That would not be science. That would be science fiction.

This is the position of all theists … that the entire universe, … big bang, galaxies, clouds, abiogenesis, etc. were all intelligently designed. 👍

To say that the universe was not intelligently designed is begging the question. Where is the proof that there is no intelligent design? If humans can intelligently design their own creations, why isn’t it plausible that God could intelligently design humans? We know that if intelligent design can exist inside the universe, there is no necessary logical impediment to the existence of intelligent design* outside* the universe.

That is, there is no necessary logical impediment to the idea of an Intelligent Designer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top