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.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I think it important reinforce the point YOU are the one questioning the author's thesis, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate what has substantively changed from George Wald's original comments..."

But it's not me "questioning the author's thesis", it's all of science, which I've been trying over several posts to introduce you to.

papertyger: ""...as opposed to the author's maintaining nothing has substantively changed with regard to said thesis."
Any other response from you apart from addressing this dynamic would be prima facie evidence of obfuscation on your part."

But there's nothing "obfuscation" about it, Mr. Horse.
I'm merely leading you to water, which nobody can force you to drink.
But if you do, you'll find many changes from 1954, such as they are, in my recommended readings.

from the article: "After reading it carefully, I wondered if the eminent researchers were listening to what science, chemistry was revealing, and I wondered that none of them named the common underlying problem, Chemical Equilibrium."

Chemical equilibrium is the basic assumption of all such research, so the question becomes: under what natural circumstances can organic molecules form & reproduce before chemical equilibrium works its processes on them?

[mlo]

Had to reach back to 1954 for this nonsense huh?

[3boysdad]

These threads always crack me up. It’s like I tell every atheist, “We’ll find out when we die, wont we? And if you’re right no one will ever know, and if I’m right EVERYONE is going to know! Now tell me again, how do you logically arrive at believing your position to be intellectually superior?! Hmmmmmmm... you’re a fool!”

I wish I knew how to post that picture of the guy holding his head in anguish saying, “Jeeze, not this crap again!”

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Misdirection!
Your statement is completely false."

No, it's a totally accurate analogy, your scorn not withstanding.

• In a murder case, for example, we start with a dead body.
  In science we start with a living body.

• In a murder case we look for evidence of how & "who done it".
  In science we look for evidence of how, assuming the Who.

• Using the evidence, in a murder case we form hypotheses on how & whom, then look for further evidence to confirm or falsify them.
  Using the evidence, in science we form hypotheses on how (assuming Whom), then look for further evidence to confirm or falsify them.

• If our hypotheses are confirmed then in a murder case we file charges, while in science we publish findings (and for some: give thanks).

Same processes, regardless of editor-surveyor's scorn.

[21twelve]

Pascal’s Wager. Another great scientist.

[BroJoeK]

3boysdad: " It’s like I tell every atheist..."

But there are no atheists here.
Rather, the scientific question is: can we find a natural explanation for how God created life on earth?

As of today the answer is a strong: maybe.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “In science we start with a living body.” <<

“We?”

Who is we? You have absolutely nothing to do with science!

You’re as fake as CNN.

The evidence, every bit of it, says evolution is impossible. That is especially so since the fullness of the DNA code is revealed. DNA is Yehova’s lock preventing “evolution” from destroying his creation.

Take your con game somewhere else.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ the scientific question is: can we find a natural explanation for how God created life on earth?” <<

No, that is the deeply unscientific scam!

There is nothing “natural.” Everything that exists was specially created to deliver the body of Yeshua to the wedding feast.

There is no other purpose to anything in the universe, and when his 1000 year demonstration of the total depravity of man is over it all will be un-created in the twinkling of an eye, and with a loud noise and feverant heat it will all cease to be.
.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: " We?”
Who is we? You have absolutely nothing to do with science!"

I'm a fan, have season tickets to all the home games. ;-)

editor-surveyor: " You’re as fake as CNN. "

And here your fellow poster papertyger complains I won't come out & fight, just keep referencing him to books & articles.
But that's only because papertyger seems to have some small interest in real science.
By contrast, you obviously have no such interest, so I wouldn't bother you about it.

editor-surveyor: " The evidence, every bit of it, says evolution is impossible. "

No, only such evidence as you care to consider, and only as you care to interpret it.
And since you are clearly not interested in other evidence, I won't mention any.

editor-surveyor: " That is especially so since the fullness of the DNA code is revealed.
DNA is Yehova’s lock preventing “evolution” from destroying his creation. "

In fact, the "fullness of the DNA code" is very far from being fully revealed.
Fair to say there's still far more we don't know than do.
But one thing observed is that every generation acquires a small number of DNA mutations, mostly harmless, some harmful and a very few helpful.
It's also noticed how such DNA mutations accumulate from one generation to the next.

editor-surveyor: "Take your con game somewhere else."

The only con here is your pretense of knowing something about real science.
But don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

[DungeonMaster]

Evolution and should be subject to all of the limitations imposed on Christianity regarding public schools and colleges.

[JohnyBoy]

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:

---

You haven’t been following very closely then.

Here’s the offical line on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Spontaneous_generation

Notice that there’s nothing newer than the 70s quoted there? The reason is all the promising experiments for the basic theories of spontaneous generation came up false and now largely don’t like to talk about it.

The facts are that spontaneous generation seems less likely today than it did in 1952 but biologists refuse to discard the theory because it’s become scientific dogma. And when you require dogma instead of experimentation then you’re no longer doing science.

[DiogenesLamp]

The facts are that spontaneous generation seems less likely today than it did in 1952 but biologists refuse to discard the theory because it’s become scientific dogma. And when you require dogma instead of experimentation then you’re no longer doing science.

If you are arguing with BroJoeK, a criticism of dogma is going to fall on deaf ears. BroJoeK is dogma central. Dogma is his favorite method of arguing.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The DNA code is revealed except to those that wish it to be malleble.

The greatest part of it is biological check-sums that prevent accidents and tampering. The code can’t accidentally “evolve” thus saving creation until judgement day.

BTW, PT is not a “Him.”
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
But we need DogMa, so DogPa will have someone to cuddle up to!
.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "No, that is the deeply unscientific scam! "

FRiend, I don't doubt your talent for interpreting scriptures, and it's likely I often agree with you.
But you have no understanding or authority to define what is or is not "science".
So your opinions regarding non-science, fake-science, or even scam-science by themselves carry no weight beyond similar opinions of anyone else.

editor-surveyor: " There is nothing “natural.”
Everything that exists was specially created to deliver the body of Yeshua to the wedding feast. "

So you may well say, but the fact is that even the ancients recognized what they called "natural philosophy", the study of nature, and what our Founders called "natural science".
Our word "science", properly defined, means natural-science as understood by our Founders.
Our Founders and others of their era (i.e., Newton), believed they were faithfully studying, in nature, the works and even Mind of God.

That is still the correct understanding, deny or mock it as much as you wish.

[BroJoeK]

JohnnyBoy: " Notice that there’s nothing newer than the 70s quoted there?
The reason is all the promising experiments for the basic theories of spontaneous generation came up false and now largely don’t like to talk about it."

If you'd read the section on "spontaneous generation" you'd see that it was disproved by Pasteur in the 1800s.
Nobody since has tried to resurrect the old spontaneous generation hypothesis.

I recommend you take an hour or two to read that entire article on origins of life, plus some of its links.
Then go on to the article I recommended in post #100 above on abiogenisis.
I promise you'll learn something about real science you didn't previously know.
Then you'll be ready to put alleged "spontaneous generation" in its historical context and differentiate it from today's ideas on abiogenisis.

[JohnyBoy]

Archebiosis is the same thing as Spontaneous Generation. Don’t try to confuse the issue by playing semantic games.

>In the years following Louis Pasteur’s experiment in 1862, the term “spontaneous generation” fell into increasing disfavor. Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from non-living materials. Heterogenesis was applied to once-living materials such as boiled broths, and Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from inorganic materials. The two were lumped together as “spontaneous generation”, but disliking the term as sounding too random, Bastian proposed biogenesis. In an 1870 address titled, “Spontaneous Generation”, Thomas Henry Huxley defined biogenesis as life originating from other life and coined the negative of the term, abiogenesis, which was the term that became dominant.[10]

>I recommend you take an hour or two to read that entire article on origins of life, plus some of its links.

I spent a year reading up on the subject when I was younger and there’s been nothing new of note since the 70s. At this point, most biologists have to reach for life was invented in the heart of starts and seeded on earth because everything testable has failed during lab testing. Or they get upset and refuse to talk about it.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There were fools in ancient times just as there are today.

Science is an unbiased search for facts.

Evolution is a highly biased agenda to develop propaganda to twist the minds of children.

Evolutionists deliberately disregard all that stands in the way of their despicable agenda. Facts when found always stand in their way.
.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "BTW, PT is not a “Him.”

So, it's papertygress? Or papertygr-it? OK.

editor-surveyor: " The greatest part of it is biological check-sums that prevent accidents and tampering.
The code can’t accidentally 'evolve' thus saving creation until judgement day."

And yet in fact there are a small number of mutations observed in every generation.
And because DNA mutations can be tracked back through ancestors to their originators, DNA analysis can tell us which regions or ethnicities we came from.

It's what places like ancestry.com are all about.

[BroJoeK]

JohnnyBoy: " Don’t try to confuse the issue by playing semantic games. "

Sorry, you are the only one playing semantic games by conflating 1800s "spontaneous generation" with current ideas on abiogenisis.
They are not the same in any way.
Beginning here: "spontaneous" cannot be said of any process taking **billions** of years.

JohnnyBoy: "I spent a year reading up on the subject when I was younger and there’s been nothing new of note since the 70s."

A good many working scientists would beg to differ, and I agree with them.
The entire scientific worldview is very different from 1970.
Again, I recommend the article linked in my post #100 above.
Please read it and then tell me you knew all that in 1970!