Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Where did the first living cell come from? According to The Independent, Charles Darwin "was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?"1
Since Darwin's time, his naturalistic followers have been diligently seeking the answer. During a recent conference at Arizona State University, a collection of scientists discussed this very question. By the end of the discussion, the answer was clear—they don't know.
"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan.2 ICR News has reported on more than a dozen recent failures by origin of life researchers to produce a naturalistic answer.3 And this giant void in evolutionary history had some of the researchers entertaining the non-explanation "that life originated elsewhere and floated here through space."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And at least scientists who take the Bible seriously are honest enough to follow the experimental evidence where it leads, even when it is against a nature-only model and strongly for a supernatural origin for life.


Science does not have all the answers, and even ignores findings that do not fit their preconcieved models. Is that really "science"?

 

WTF does that answer? "life originated elsewhere" doesn't explain the first cell. It just passes the question onto some other location....space.
[Let's just not deal with it and say that life on this planet didn't originate on this planet...it originated on some other planet]...problem solved.???

 

When reiligionists can answer "From where did God originate", I might take then seriously. For now, they respond with a tautology whilst demanding logic from others.

 

which god?

the dude on a thrown? Mankind created that one

That utter guy, in heaven as some utter place? Created by man.

But the one that created mankind from dust is not a HE. It's a she; mother nature.

To be all serious, of course.

The fool that believes they are UN-natural born are the ones believin' in magic.

People want to believe and many will stop thinking, once they believe.

 

If English is not your first language than you are excused for repeatedly misusing the word "thrown" instead of the correct word, "throne".

 

same difference; to believe in that kind, you thrown! (been lied too)


when you wannna tink of a god on a thrownin throne then think of the minds who created the ideology. Think of pharoahs, king, poopes, caliph and even rabbid's (boy nun with curlers in their hair) and which doctors. Wich which, ouich should i yoose?

the thrown god is whom that jimmy jones guy was crying to and rick warren sellin' votes for, right?


you can believe in them kinds of gods but the oxygen you breath is a part of mother nature, even to the folks who believe they UN-natural born.


kind of weird, but you can witness them, even with camaflageee on. Because of the smell of what comes outta em' ......

 

The Sun and Moon


Of all the energy the sun gives off, only 0.45 billionth of its daily output strikes the earth. The sun provides the earth with energy estimated at over 239 trillion horsepower, about 35,000 horsepower for each current resident. Even though there likely exist several hundred billion galaxies in the universe, each with 100 billion stars, there is only one atom for every 88 gallons of space, which means the vast majority of the universe is empty space!
If the moon was much larger or nearer to the earth, the huge tides that would result would overflow onto the lowlands and erode the mountains. If the continents were leveled, it is estimated that water would cover the entire surface to the depth of over a mile! If the earth was not tilted 23° on its axis, but rather was on a 90° angle in reference to the sun, we would not have four seasons.
Without seasons, life would soon not be able to exist on earth—the poles would lie in eternal twilight, and water vapor from the oceans would be carried by the wind towards both the north and south, freezing when it moved close enough to the poles. In time, huge continents of snow and ice would pile up in the polar regions, leaving most of the earth a dry desert. The oceans would eventually disappear, and rainfall would cease. The accumulated weight of ice at the poles would cause the equator to bulge, and, as a result, the earth's rotation would drastically change.
Just a “little” change (in the perspective of the universe) would render the earth unsuitable to support any life. Is this the result of accidental randomness, or purposeful intent?

 

What astounding ignorance.

There are plenty of books out there that have postulated the theory of where the first cell came from.

The most accepted one, is that there was that there were proto-bacteria who had no nucleus. They functioned by the most primitive of RNA sequences but had no nucleus, no DNA.

Then along comes a virus. This virus attaches itself to the proto-bacteria but a strange thing happens. Instead of just injecting it's DNA into the proto-bacteria to reproduce, it actually kept it's protein shell and absorbed direclty into the proto-bacteria where it instantly became the nucleus of the first single cell organism. The virus took over the proto-bacterial RNA and began to sythesize proteins and copy itself by splitting itself in two.

Probably the most important act of natural selection in Geologic History.

 

The Institute for Creation Science? Lol. The "article" didn't even mention what conference it was that came to this startling conclusion.

 

The minimum requirements for physical cellular life are vast in number, information rich, and precise in structure. Natural processes are not known to generate any of the kinds of molecular machines—many of which can manipulate specific, single atoms—that are required to sustain cells. Nor is there any plausible scenario yet imagined whereby the laws of chemistry and physics alone could manufacture the very mechanisms that enable living things to avoid the natural consequences of those laws—decay and diffusion.
The higher the number of specifications required for life, the lower the probability that life could have arisen through random, undirected forces. The actual number of specifications now known is so high that there is no reasonable doubt that life must have been engineered by a perceptive power that exists beyond natural laws. Since natural entities cannot account for life, a supernatural entity must.
This conclusion is consistent with biblical creation. For example, Revelation 4:11 states, “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.”
Those who reject the Bible continue to research possible ways that nature could have generated a living cell. After almost a century of effort, and even using intricately designed experimental setups, they have met with total failure in producing even the most basic chemicals used as building blocks for the larger chemicals of living cells. Since God—not nature—made life, these evolutionary efforts will continue to fail.


http://www.icr.org/creation-cells/

 

It's gravity that resists the relentless expansion of space, not god.

If the moon was much larger or nearer the Earth, life would have evolved differently than it did. Or perhaps not have occurred at all, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome in nature--though tides alone would not adequately explain that.

Mind you, the moon is awfully big for a moon. Though if it was very much larger than it is now, given how it formed, it is unlikely the Earth would have sustained life anyway, since it would have lost too much mass and cooled much, much faster than it did.

Four seasons are neither a prerequisite for life, nor are they a pre-determined outcome. We've noticed that the Earth happens to have periodic variations in climate, and we have called the variations seasons, and given them names. But that does not mean that seasons are a requirement for life, or that there is some reason they must have occurred as they did.

And yes, the Earth does have a lot of water. Even with the surface variation on Earth, water still covers the vast majority of it. If Earth was less geologically active, it would be entirely covered by water (and baked by radiation from the sun...). Neither of these are indicative of intentional design.

Because life on Earth evolved with them present. If there were no seasons, life would probably have evolved very differently.

If the Earth had no seasons, the poles would not be bathed in eternal twilight because their lengthy day/night cycle in the summer and winter is only a factor of the Earth's current tilt (which is responsible for the seasons in the first place).

If the Earth did not have an axial tilt "the poles" might not even get cold enough for the kind of hard freeze you're talking about. They wouldn't have summer, but they wouldn't have winter either. Of course, that would need some tremendously powerful winds anyway, which aren't likely to happen on a planet with such even warming. Note also that such powerful winds would be a way for heat to move from the equator to the poles, warming them even further.

Also, most of that water being carried by those winds would fall elsewhere as rain. Even assuming that there were winds that would eventually push all the water to the poles, and they were cool enough for water to become compacted into frozen glaciers, those glaciers would eventually expand down into warmer regions. The ice would melt and start flowing again. What you would probably end up with is a perpetual glacier in regions where the weather was cool enough for water to freeze, and lots of rivers and rain elsewhere. The winds you're describing, if nothing else, would tend to push the ice around and spread it out, rather than piling it up into great ice mountains at the poles.

Mind you, you are assuming that the Earth's axial tilt would change, and that it isn't closer to the Sun, or having a different atmospheric makeup. You say the axial tilt is important, but that would be less important if the Earth was somewhat closer to the Sun, since at that point water would not be able to freeze during the day on a planet with a 0 degree tilt.

I would like to see the model you're using to predict that particular outcome. That seems highly, highly unlikely.

No it wouldn't, on either count.

No, it wouldn't.

Looks like it's the result of pure, random chance.

 

Obviously your scientific education and research is better than the author's. What are your credential to refute the evidence provided?

 

@ NaturalBorn: You really should put your cut and paste into a more formal setting. It's not entirely obvious that is a direct quote from the biblical nonces at the ICR.

Most of that text is nonsense anyway, we have advanced in leaps and bounds in understanding the nature of life and it's origins.

 

Well, how big of you. With a concerted effort, possibly 'religionists will provide that answer at the same time you can provide the answer to; where did all the material contained in the universe, that was condensed into that infinitely small space, come from prior to your big bang? Fair enough? Science has thousands of minds working away at that question that haven't been able to come up with an answer. Do they just 'take it on faith' that it was there and needs no explanation..some sort of scientific dogma? Somewhat like 'religionists' claim that 'God just is'?

There are countless theories as to how the universe came to be. Conceived by countless scientists that have spent their entire lives in front of their chalkboards scribbling down endless chains of calculations to no avail. Some of them may even have hit upon the truth...But we'll never know. Their theory might be to bazaar for established science to pay heed to. Quantum physics states that whatever could be...is..in some chain of probability. If quantum physics is truth..then isn't anything possible, at least for a while?

 

Sadly, that might be true. It reflects more poorly on the author than it does on me, however. If his argument is easily refuted even by someone with as limited a scientific background as I have, then clearly his argument has a problem.

A proper scientist won't fall back on arguments from authority when presented with a critique.

 

One imagines that 200 years ago you would have been in the camp that cried that since no one yet knew the origins of diseases, that it could only be the disfavor of God that brought on illness or killed women in childbirth.

Religionists won't answer the questions of the origins of God, as to contemplate such is blasphemy.

If the conditions that created the Earth require that there be a super intelligent creator god, then the conditions that create that creator god requires an even greater intelligence. Shouldn't you be worshiping that god-creating creator god? And where did he come from anyway?

 

You answer questions with questions. I don't believe that contemplating the origin of god is blasphemy. I neither believe in blasphemy or in that god you're trying to force me to believe in...However I find you to be closed minded and not worth discussing the matter with. Go find someone else to 'argue' with.. I wasn't arguing, I was attempting to have a 'rounded conversation' Apparently you're not capable of that.

 

It's rather ironic that you complain of this, when, in fact, you were answering my original questions with questions. I guess a conversation, to you, is only "rounded" when you ask the questions and others answer to your satisfaction.

 

I think that in science it is very healthy to admit that we dont know. Some of the worst science has resulted from the desire to have a working theory. Pure supposition replaces science and you end up with things like aether.

 

Religion is always opposed to science and ICR is just a religious institute masquerading as a scientific one and no credence should be given to any of its utterances.

 

So no one has anything to argue against the OP, only the fallback position of bashing GOD.

 

Ummmmm! Not "no one", but Someone

 

Thanks. He was lost in the noise.

 

But these aren't human-made machines we are talking about. It is only blatantly obvious what is natural and what is human-made because of our experiences. Crystals are incredibly complex but we don't assume they are "designed" because we know how they are created in nature.

DNA, the storage of this information, is made out of chemicals.

This isn't the question we use because we don't assume that a fully functional modern cell just appeared.

That isn't an explanation, it is special pleading. "Well, everything else requires a beginning, but NOT the Christian God!" Using the same reasoning, why can't we just assume that the Universe has always existed?

Why don't you go back to arguing that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?

 

Quoted for truth