Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

posted on June 19th, 2012, 6:24 pm

First off, I wasn't suggesting that one gives up on creating life. I'm just pointing out the facts obtained from experimentation and observation, which, if I'm not mistaking, is half of the scientific method. The results support the hypothesis (or rather, law) that life cannot come from non-life (law of Biogenesis - the production of living organisms from other living organisms). It's not just a few variations of an experiment or two that we're talking about. It's 150 some years of experimenting (starting with Pasture) with each new generation of experiments getting more and more aggressive in their attempts (and subsequent failures) to produce life from non-life. Yet we've found that we can't even get the building blocks to self-assemble into the required structures, much less those structures self-assembling into a life form. And while we should always be performing experiments that try to overturn scientific laws or to confirm a hypothesis, you cannot say that there is no problem when 150 some years of (increasingly aggressive) research simply overturns the hypothesis that life can come from non-life.

Secondly, the math analogy uses a (complex) example of what one learns in the first grade. Subtracting the answer by one of it's terms. Yes, one could theorize that n must be solvable. But you don't prove that n is solvable by going through the most time consuming means available, you prove it through the least time consuming means available. In this case, a concept that is learned in the first grade. That's exactly what we're doing with the origin-of-life experiments. Using the least time consuming methods available to show that the structures that make up life do not self-assemble into a life form.

As for propaganda, I will use your own definition against you:
"I have explained why it is propaganda too: because it polishes facts that favours it"
Archeopteryx qualifies as propaganda. It's proclaimed as a dino-bird transitional. Yet it is fully bird and appears BEFORE it's alleged ancestor.

Nylonace qualifies as propaganda. It's proclaimed as an increase in genetic information when in fact, it's the result of a reshuffling of preexisting information, which by the way, is overall detrimental to the organism.

Skethers (scale-feather transitionals) qualifies as propaganda. They are collagen fibers that are found in all vertebrates. And it serves to reinforce the skin, particularly when the skin tears.

Wales Hips qualify as propaganda. It's proclaimed as a vestigial (useless) remnant from the wale's evolutionary past, when in fact, they're latching mechanisms (similar to that on railroad cars) that aid in reproduction and childbearing.

The Miller-type experiments qualifies as propaganda. It's proclaimed as a major step in understanding the development of life, when in fact, it shows several (of the many) reasons why life from non-life is impossible.

---

The scientific method has been used to show that life cannot come from non-life. I CAN claim such things because such things HAVE been done. Now you are telling me that all this scientific data showing that life cannot come from non-life and every experiment failing to produce life from non-life, something that is the very foundation to evolution, is NOT a problem for evolution? That makes evolution unfalsifiable, therefore, not science. If nothing can be considered a problem for a theory, then it's not a scientific theory, it's religion. You have just proven that evolution is a religion by claiming that these experiments do not pose a problem.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 6:41 pm

At the end of day the answer dose not matter and the funny thing is we can never prove it beyond a doubt.



Science VS Evolution is as imposable to answer as is Star Trek VS Star Wars. It comes down to what you like better.

For me beleving in a book that is so far removed from the person/thing/what ever he/she/it was crated to describe is strange to me.

At the end of the day Science or Evolution dont matter. It a chose of what your life is for that dose be couse as far as I know we only have one.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 7:24 pm

and the sad thing about all this is...

if that was true (life from non-life is impossible) we would not bother debating this

posted on June 19th, 2012, 7:42 pm

and the sad thing about all this is...

if that was true (life from non-life is impossible) we would not bother debating this

Unless it was true, but science is not sufficient to explain the genesis of the universe and life.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 8:56 pm

TCR, yet again you have sidestepped every part of my posts and just reinforced your ignorance of what I said.

What a load of rubbish. Pointing out everyone elses "flaws" (even those I have already explained to you) whilst ignoring your own. You're as bad as them.

As for the mathemetical "first grade" thing, I already explained that in my previous post. METAPHOR. Go read it. It's hilarious that you still don't understand that.

I'm not going to waste any more time repeating my entire post to you yet again. You're so blinkered you can't even read what I actually wrote. "Not as stupid as you think I am"..? In fact, I gave you too much credit. Bye bye.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 10:50 pm

You again sidestepped MY posts and reinforced YOUR WILLFUL ignorance.

Your "explanations" ignore more than a century of conclusive scientific research that says it just cannot happen. They are just-so stories to back a failing theory. To put it in your own words, you're as bad as them.

I know that it's a metaphor. It's a poor one at that. Science isn't done by using a method that takes a long time when a method is available that takes a short time (time something takes is relative in the field of science). You've completely ignored my point.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand that theories are discarded when every experiment shows that what's being theorized can't happen. As for you giving me "too much credit." That simply confirms what I have said.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 11:57 pm

One thing we all agreed on is/was that this topic had the potential to be inflammatory due to the obvious contrary points of view. Something we also agreed on was that this topic did not have to be closed if people could stay respectful towards the other.

Ridiculing, sniping, calling others ignorant and blatantly stupid are not considered respectful.

I would call on everyone to get back onto the "respectful train" or ask the moderators to close this topic.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 1:18 am

Well, i highly doubt OP wanted a non-inflammatory topic or a real discussion after all, otherwise he would have chosen his topic title more carefully and logically in the first place.

that this topic had the potential to be inflammatory due to the obvious contrary points of view.

Andre, its not about contrary points, it's about one group having results, and another one just believes.

Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

Of course there will be loopholes in origin of life - it is a theory.
And "science vs evolution", evolution is a science, and the sciences he mentions are far away from logical.
Don't forget another part: origin of life =/= evolution.
If you want to know what evolution is, i recommend Optec's shiny example, or just look at this picture:
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/upload/5592 ... 150769.jpg
Evolution does not describe the origin of life!



Ok, back to "origin of life"
Of course this doesn't answer the question. "Hey, why is that stupid cell there in the first place, and just copying itself" - we don't know yet, we can only try to find out.

Let me try bring up a very simple (and silly) example:
(you will need some imagination)
You are two years old, and sit in front of your legos.
You see a shiny piece of finished "whatsoever", and you wan't to change it a bit to your needs, let's say you put some tires on it so it can drive - that is evolution.
Of course you understand that changing a few parts here and there will change the object, and you do understand that putting a lego brick on another will result in something else, and if you try long or logically enough you will have a specific result which is reproducible - that is science.
But remember, you're two years old, and you may ask how often you want, you still got no f'kin idea what a lego really is in the first place, neither do you have the comprehension to understand where it came from, or why it's even there - that is the origin of life.
TL;DR we may guess, we may try, but mankind is just not advanced enough yet, or hasn't found the correct way to reverse engineer the origin.



And now directly at TChapman500
If you start a discussion with topic titles like mentioned above, weird one sided "sources" (*cough*) that are from "creationists" (while you don't want to include your shiny sources into the discussion), while totally mixing up the difference between all the stuff you've just read, yes, then of course it will start a flame war.
What do you expect?

Your "explanations" ignore more than a century of conclusive scientific research that says it just cannot happen.

"conclusive scientific research", seriously, these kind of words always remind me of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HC3xwlfcFM#t=1m41s
(... and btw. you haven't brought up a single reliable source yet.)

that theories are discarded when every experiment shows that what's being theorized can't happen

If you dont know what to look for, if you dont even know if youre already able to find it, you can still try to exclude possible ways until you do. That is how science works. Not the way you describe it!
The discard heavily depends on need regarding the topic.
FYI: if you start an argument like this, you should think it through. A few centuries ago people believed there would be witches, the earth is flat, and overall mankind had no fucking idea about anything in comparison to modern standards. Now think further how our current methods will look like once another few centuries passed.
> hope you got my point.



Anyways, why am i even writing this. I've (sadly) got the feeling you just gonna read more pseudo-science from that weird creation.com website, which is either no science at all in the first place, or totally taken out of context just to discredit everyone else.
Last but not least: science is about asking questions and trying to answer them. It is a WORK IN PROGRESS, religion is not - and that's what you should be worried about, and that's why you can't discuss these kind of topics with religious fanatics.



Anyways, i think science and christianity are both wrong, i keep believing in my way more tasty god... prove me wrong.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 1:50 am

You again sidestepped MY posts and reinforced YOUR WILLFUL ignorance.

Your "explanations" ignore more than a century of conclusive scientific research that says it just cannot happen. They are just-so stories to back a failing theory. To put it in your own words, you're as bad as them.

I know that it's a metaphor. It's a poor one at that. Science isn't done by using a method that takes a long time when a method is available that takes a short time (time something takes is relative in the field of science). You've completely ignored my point.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand that theories are discarded when every experiment shows that what's being theorized can't happen. As for you giving me "too much credit." That simply confirms what I have said.

Science doesn't work like this though TCR, the hypothesis isn't that life can be created easily from it's compenents. It could be a 1 in 100 trillion chance to happen every second.
Suppose it is, and life could still have formed millions of years ago because it happened over such a long time period. We have no way of testing over that scale of time at the moment and we don't even know the starting conditions. Our 100 years of reasearch is less than 0.1% of that time scale.
Do you understand my point TCR?
The previous experiments do not invalidate the theory, they only show that life doesn't appear to be created under those circumstances. It does not mean under all others it will not be formed either, because we haven't tested them.

Please someone point out any flaw in what I have said, I am very tired but I am trying to explain exactly what scientific method is and how it applys in this instance.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 2:26 am

"the hypothesis isn't that life can be created easily from it's compenents."
That's not the impression I got from reading that the miller type experiments have "brought us to the verge of understanding the formation of life." If anything, it simply shows how far away we are at best. Does anyone want to try separating the tar from the amino acids (hydrogen-ammonia-methane mixture)?

"It could be a 1 in 100 trillion chance to happen every second."
Here's some very generous figures on the probability of just one protein.
To build the average protein of say 150 amino acids (actual number is 200 I think) in 14 billion years, there would have to be 4.6 x 10^221 tries per second. And that is quite generous considering that life on earth has only 900 million years (4.6-3.5 billion years ago) to do it. I just gave it the entire lifespan of the universe (by evolutionary estimates) and then some, plus a small amino-acid count. Now, evolution has to repeat this process more than 200 times to come up with a bare minimum life form.

Formulas (caution, can get very complicated):
1 / ( 40^a )
Where a equals the number of amino acids that the protein has.
The 40 represents the two variants (left and right hand) of each of the 20 types of amino acids.

( 1 / ( 40^a ) ) * ( 1 / 40^b ) would calculate for proteins of different lengths. It works exactly like the first formula, except that you run the first formula for every amino acid length that the life form uses.

1 / ( ( 40^a ) / b ) would calculate for multiple proteins of the same length. Where b equals the number of proteins that are of this length.

( 1 / ( (40^a ) / b ) ) * ( 1 / ( ( 40^c ) / d ) ) would calculate for proteins of the same length and different lengths. Works exactly life the third formula listed, except you run the third formula for every amino acid length that the life form uses. And b and d are the number of amino acids that are of the same length listed by a and c respectively.

To find out the number of tries per second, divide your result by the number of seconds that you have given the protein to form (years * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60).

"Suppose it is, and life could still have formed millions of years ago because it happened over such a long time period." Well, I've given you the probabilities, and the information you need to calculate them, and to find out how many tries per second are necessary for the allotted amount of time.

"We have no way of testing over that scale of time at the moment and we don't even know the starting conditions." We have a good idea of the starting conditions based on the rocks dated to be from the time the atmosphere formed. It definitely was not a hydrogen-methane-ammonia atmosphere. Two best guesses. Either carbon dioxide-nitrogen, or oxygen-nitrogen.

"Do you understand my point TCR? " I understand perfectly. And (not meaning to be disrespectful) do you understand my point as well?

"The previous experiments do not invalidate the theory, they only show that life doesn't appear to be created under those circumstances. It does not mean under all others it will not be formed either, because we haven't tested them." What about the experiments that put all of the pre-assembled complex structures in a lifeless environment?

---

NOTE: This post was intended to be respectful.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 2:43 am

@ TChapman500:
1. you do not understand probability.
2. you do not understand theory.
To be more precise: we do not know if life started on earth in the first place. And just because we only could find a life form that is x years old, doesn't exclude the probability of another older one.
That's why it's called a theory. While the mentioned "evolution" is fact.

(Seriously, start a new topic with a better topic title. "Origin of life", in a more philosophical way might be more suited)

Until then, i just give up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno

posted on June 20th, 2012, 3:34 am

I wonder how meny pages this thread will get to be for people get frustrated and give up.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 11:17 am

"the hypothesis isn't that life can be created easily from it's compenents."
That's not the impression I got from reading that the miller type experiments have "brought us to the verge of understanding the formation of life." If anything, it simply shows how far away we are at best. Does anyone want to try separating the tar from the amino acids (hydrogen-ammonia-methane mixture)?

"It could be a 1 in 100 trillion chance to happen every second."
Here's some very generous figures on the probability of just one protein.
To build the average protein of say 150 amino acids (actual number is 200 I think) in 14 billion years, there would have to be 4.6 x 10^221 tries per second. And that is quite generous considering that life on earth has only 900 million years (4.6-3.5 billion years ago) to do it. I just gave it the entire lifespan of the universe (by evolutionary estimates) and then some, plus a small amino-acid count. Now, evolution has to repeat this process more than 200 times to come up with a bare minimum life form.

Formulas (caution, can get very complicated):
1 / ( 40^a )
Where a equals the number of amino acids that the protein has.
The 40 represents the two variants (left and right hand) of each of the 20 types of amino acids.

( 1 / ( 40^a ) ) * ( 1 / 40^b ) would calculate for proteins of different lengths. It works exactly like the first formula, except that you run the first formula for every amino acid length that the life form uses.

1 / ( ( 40^a ) / b ) would calculate for multiple proteins of the same length. Where b equals the number of proteins that are of this length.

( 1 / ( (40^a ) / b ) ) * ( 1 / ( ( 40^c ) / d ) ) would calculate for proteins of the same length and different lengths. Works exactly life the third formula listed, except you run the third formula for every amino acid length that the life form uses. And b and d are the number of amino acids that are of the same length listed by a and c respectively.

To find out the number of tries per second, divide your result by the number of seconds that you have given the protein to form (years * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60).

"Suppose it is, and life could still have formed millions of years ago because it happened over such a long time period." Well, I've given you the probabilities, and the information you need to calculate them, and to find out how many tries per second are necessary for the allotted amount of time.

"We have no way of testing over that scale of time at the moment and we don't even know the starting conditions." We have a good idea of the starting conditions based on the rocks dated to be from the time the atmosphere formed. It definitely was not a hydrogen-methane-ammonia atmosphere. Two best guesses. Either carbon dioxide-nitrogen, or oxygen-nitrogen.

"Do you understand my point TCR? " I understand perfectly. And (not meaning to be disrespectful) do you understand my point as well?

"The previous experiments do not invalidate the theory, they only show that life doesn't appear to be created under those circumstances. It does not mean under all others it will not be formed either, because we haven't tested them." What about the experiments that put all of the pre-assembled complex structures in a lifeless environment?

---

NOTE: This post was intended to be respectful.

And I respect your post, however, lifeless environment isn't all encapsulating. We do not know the exact conditions from which life supposedly formed. The type of rock could have made a difference, and also the composition of the atmosphere, and whatever gases where more local. For example there may have been a very recent volcanic eruption putting more sulphur or CO2 or ash into the air nearby which could all have contribute. The variables are simply too many for our relatively extremely few experiments to be proving of anything.

I'm not sure exactly what your numbers are saying, but I don't understand your point entirely. You give a list of formulae but I don't see a conclusion from them? Whatever your calculations show, 150 years of a few experiments cannot possibly prove that something we think happens rarely nevered happened over a period of 900 million years.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 3:14 pm

The formulas are a bit complex, but they are important in determining the probability of life coming from non life.

When the a in the first formula [ 1 / ( 40^a ) ] is replaced by 150, we get a probability of, 1:2x10^240. Mathematics recognizes anything over 1:1x10^50 as being impossible. To give you an idea on the type of numbers we're talking about, try typing a 2 and following it by 240 zeros! Then, for the probability recognized as being impossible, type a 1 followed by 50 zeros! It'll look something like this.

1:2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Probability recognized as impossible:

1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I understand your position, and I would certainly encourage one to continue to try to create life. However, from the data we have in how organic matter behaves (such as needing to be manipulated to prevent incorrect bonds), I am 1,000% positive that they will all fail.

---

beserene:
1) Actually, you are the one that doesn't understand probability, I've studied it in depth and I know how to make the formulas to calculate it.
2) I do understand theory.

"we do not know if life started on earth in the first place" That doesn't really solve the problem. It just moves it to a different planet.

"And just because we only could find a life form that is x years old, doesn't exclude the probability of another older one. " I was calculated based upon the assigned age of the universe of about 14 billion years. Besides, adding or subtracting even 14 trillion years does not help the situation.

"That's why it's called a theory. While the mentioned "evolution" is fact."
It's propagated as fact, but it doesn't mean that it is. And just because a majority believe it to be fact, doesn't mean that it is a fact. And there are actually lists of scientists who openly reject evolution because they've found it lacking in evidence

Also, among the scientific community, there is plenty of disagreement as to whether or not evolution is a fact. And we find more and more scientists actually starting to reject evolution because of their research.

In a recent poll (of non-scientists), 78% of Americans reject atheistic evolution, while only 15% accept it. Leaving 7% undecided.
World Net Daily

Polls on what the scientific community believe are a bit harder to come by, so I can't give any precise figures in this area. All I know is, a lot of scientists reject evolution, and there are more being added to that list all the time. There are however, websites that have partial lists of scientists who reject evolution.

---

By the way, the only place I've heard that the origin of life is not evolution is on internet debates. And not everyone agrees with it. Considering that there's a website who's title has "Chemical Evolution" (origin of life). And there are plenty who claim that the origin of life is a part of evolution. Claims about the origin of life not being evolution are rejected.

---

ewm90
When it comes to the origins controversy, almost nobody, ever gives up.

posted on June 20th, 2012, 3:55 pm

"we do not know if life started on earth in the first place" That doesn't really solve the problem. It just moves it to a different planet.

True, yet the experiments you cite make use of conditions that are - in your own words - 'based on the rocks dated to be from the time the atmosphere formed'. We do not have samples of this other planet. For all we know, it was a veritable soup of organic proteins or had an atmosphere completely alien to our own.

In a recent poll (of non-scientists), 78% of Americans reject atheistic evolution, while only 15% accept it. Leaving 7% undecided.
World Net Daily

Polls on what the scientific community believe are a bit harder to come by, so I can't give any precise figures in this area. All I know is, a lot of scientists reject evolution, and there are more being added to that list all the time. There are however, websites that have partial lists of scientists who reject evolution.

A poll is hardly compelling proof. If I may propagate a national stereotype, Americans are much more inclined towards a Judeo-Christian worldview and literal interpretations of the Bible. Was the entirety of America surveyed? Even here in the UK, which if Cameron is correct is still a Christian country and which is nowhere near secular enough for my liking, you would not get such a percentage of people agreeing with a statement that is eminently unprovable.

Any website that even desires to list scientists who reject evolution is biased. That's like me using a website that lists religious types who have embraced atheism (or, at least, agnosticism). The fact that evolution is the only scientific theory that suggest origin or development of life also suggests it was a matter of faith more than anything.