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.

[Puckster]

Second Law of Thermodynamics....entropy.

Whether the fallacy of the “Big Bang”, or “Natural Selection”, etc., this law is a witness against anything other than a creator.

[sparklite2]

See post 34 for the corrective to what you’ve been told.

[Bellflower]

The worshipers at the Altar of Darwin have to take huge leaps of faith.

They have to take insane leaps of faith, trillions of times over.

[UCANSEE2]

The intermolecular force is a balance between the repulsive and attractive force of the molecules.

And those repulsive and attractive forces are caused by.... ?

[21twelve]

“That information doesn’t just come out of nowhere.”

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA reasoned that it was too complex to have “just happened”, and that an intellegent being created it. He proposed the idea of other civilizations blasting out the code into space - “pansperma”. Of course that just begs the question of where did those aliens get the code?

And more recently they have learned, it isn’t just the way the code is arranged, it is also how it is folded and packaged.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "BTW, we are well familiar with the tactic of making a claim, then offering an undifferentiated “phone book” instead of a falsifiable argument.
If you can’t give a falsifiable summary, you are simply engaging in hearsay."

So, I take it you favor the type of scientific exactitude practiced by other posters here, this one, for example:

editor-surveyor post #30: "Pathetic pulp fiction, and nothing more."

Now there is a real scientific argument for you, in the same class as E=MC² for it's brilliance & brevity, right?

</sarc>

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I’ll betcha you can’t find even ONE “rival conjecture” in ANY of those three works..."

All such books provide some review of the history of "rival conjectures", along with presenting the latest findings & ideas.

Please remember, my post is in response to your claim regarding progress in "origin of life" studies:

papertyger: ""None. Zero. Zip.
The Scientific/Cultural mandarins gave up on the question as unknowable and irrelevant.""

These books (and many others) demonstrate there's been huge progress since George Wald in 1954.

[BroJoeK]

Zeneta: "The guy that wrote the first book on this subject, Chemical Origins of life, I forgot his name, later came out to say he was wrong and it’s impossible.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t deterred many others to take the cause."

A quick Amazon search for books on "Chemical Origins of Life" produces a list of 152 (!!) books, the oldest of which seems to be this one:

The chemical origin of life, (A monograph in American lectures in living chemistry) Hardcover – 1964

The most recent are these two:

The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology by Pier Luigi Luisi, October 20, 2016

Biochemical Adaptation: Response to Environmental Challenges from Life's Origins to the Anthropocene 1st Edition by George N. Somero (Author),‎ Brent L. Lockwood (Author),‎ Lars Tomanek (Author), February 1, 2017

[Elsie]

Has there still been no progress in "origin of life" studies?

Well; it's been REALLY hard to determine how many times 'life' sprang from the primordial goo before it learned that it would have to either be able to reproduce itself or else leap up from the muck to live eternally.

[Elsie]

...so a land mammal, over a long period of time, can be an ancestor of an orca.

[Elsie]

The addition of solar energy to the earth makes it 'not closed.'

And then the sun runs out of fuel.

But BEFORE that...

2 Peter 3:10-11

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?

[Elsie]

Of course that just begs the question of where did those aliens get the code?

From turtles; of course.

[Elsie]

E=MC²

Can be re-written as...

M=E/C² Thus...

LET THERE BE...

He is the Light of the world...

[Elsie]

And, no it is not possible to explain the nature of these forces in a few words on an internet forum.

HMMMmmm...

Colossians 1:17

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

[Elsie]

There is PLANT life;
and there is ANIMAL life.

I wonder...

...which one came first?

[Elsie]

In his August 1954, Scientific American article,

Back BEFORE the Liberal/Progressive mindset took it over.

[CurlyDave]

...He is before all things, and in him all things hold together...

I am a believer.

However, your quote only explains the overarching reasons why these forces exist, which is that God made it that way.

God has allowed man to see, even though only dimly, the actual nature of the forces which He has used to shape the universe. Your quote does nothing to explain our understanding of these forces.

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "...it's been REALLY hard to determine how many times 'life' sprang from the primordial goo... "

All depends on your definition of "life", but safe to say it never "sprang".
Oozed, swam or crawled, maybe.

Elsie: "...it would have to either be able to reproduce itself or else leap up from the muck to live eternally."

Remember, there is no biological definition of "life" which does not include reproduction.
As for "leap" or "eternally", never happened that we know of.

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "M=E/C2 Thus...
LET THERE BE...
He is the Light of the world... "

My thoughts exactly.

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "There is PLANT life;
and there is ANIMAL life.
I wonder... ...which one came first? "

Again, depends on definitions, but "life" does not need photosynthesis so "plants" came later.
Does that make precursors "animals"?
Definitions.