What caused life to come into existence?

[ScienceRocks]

Do you realize that your attacks on science is driving me even further away from God? Your blindness is your greatest enemy.

 

[irosie91]

A crushingly stupid OP. No, we do not know exactly what path abiogenesis took, among the very many that look possible at present. However, the answer to the question posed in the title are the laws of physics and chemistry.

That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.

Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.

I could bore you with a lengthy copy and paste of a rebuttal. Suffice it to say, anyone who claims they can take non-living matter and CREATE life from it is FULL OF SHIT.

true-----just as anyone who claims the ability to BUILD A SUN is full of shit. --------so?

 

[fncceo]

Do you realize that your attacks on science is driving me even further away from God?

And G-d will get over it. Seriously.

 

[Picaro]

I thought 'science' has decided life started because the Giant Darwin Fairy knitted some DNA together in a mud hole somewhere.

 

[fncceo]

I thought 'science' has decided life started because the Giant Darwin Fairy knitted some DNA together in a mud hole somewhere.

Not precisely that way.

 

[Picaro]

I thought 'science' has decided life started because the Giant Darwin Fairy knitted some DNA together in a mud hole somewhere.

Not precisely that way.

Close enough. The mathematical probabilities re the series of mutations and genetic recombination make the current claims of evolution being 'proven science' a load of extreme fantasy. The 'punctuated equilibrium' hand waves are particularly funny stuff.

 

[fncceo]

I thought 'science' has decided life started because the Giant Darwin Fairy knitted some DNA together in a mud hole somewhere.

Not precisely that way.

Close enough. The mathematical probabilities re the series of mutations and genetic recombination make the current claims of evolution being 'proven science' a load of extreme fantasy. The 'punctuated equilibrium' hand waves are particularly funny stuff.

Life came into being somewhere in the solar system at some time early after its formation. It turns out the creation of organic molecules from inorganic compounds is easy to accomplish with simple lab equipment in experiments that have been replicated thousands of times.

How precisely that organic life came to earth -- from another planet or from our own -- remains a mystery. We may learn more as we more thoroughly explore the solar system, but we do know that life in its simplest forms may be quite abundant in our solar system.

We also know that evolution happens, we've observed it happening.

The question is, would G-d, the supreme intelligence of the Universe with infinite time on his hands choose to create life species by species like a village craftsman ... or would he work smarter, creating a Universe conducive to molecular biology and set it loose to do the work for him? Does G-d work hard, or does G-d work smart?

 

[Picaro]

Life came into being somewhere in the solar system at some time early after its formation. It turns out the creation of organic molecules from inorganic compounds is easy to accomplish with simple lab equipment in experiments that have been replicated thousands of times.

Except that nature isn't a laboratory, they are artificial and don't re-create natural creation.

How precisely that organic life came to earth -- from another planet or from our own -- remains a mystery. We may learn more as we more thoroughly explore the solar system, but we do know that life in its simplest forms may be quite abundant in our solar system.

That isn't empirical evidence; I don't disagree with the idea, but it is not evidence, just a guess.

We also know that evolution happens, we've observed it happening.

Not really; we see recombination and adaptations not genuinely random evolution and mutation.

The question is, would G-d, the supreme intelligence of the Universe with infinite time on his hands choose to create life species by species like a village craftsman ... or would he work smarter, creating a Universe conducive to molecular biology and set it loose to do the work for him? Does G-d work hard, or does G-d work smart?

Well, human history is pretty short, and it's prehistory doesn't go back far, relative to the posited age of the Earth; we're 'brand new' relative to that.

Evolution may turn out to be the right general idea, who knows, but as of now it isn't 'proven science', and shouldn't be peddled that way. I sleep just fine not knowing one way or the other what the facts turn out to be, one belief system is as good as another in this case.

 

[fncceo]

Except that nature isn't a laboratory,

In fact, the largest laboratory in existence. With trillions of biological experiments happening on a daily basis.

 

[Picaro]

Except that nature isn't a laboratory,

In fact, the largest laboratory in existence. With trillions of biological experiments happening on a daily basis.

Doesn't matter how large it is, they're still not recreating nature or evolution; they're deliberately stocking the tank themselves, and that alone invalidates the experiments.

 

[K9Buck]

A crushingly stupid OP. No, we do not know exactly what path abiogenesis took, among the very many that look possible at present. However, the answer to the question posed in the title are the laws of physics and chemistry.

That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.

Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.

I could bore you with a lengthy copy and paste of a rebuttal. Suffice it to say, anyone who claims they can take non-living matter and CREATE life from it is FULL OF SHIT.

true-----just as anyone who claims the ability to BUILD A SUN is full of shit. --------so?

So you believe the universe created itself?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

Autogenesis

The alternative that is suppressed by the two cliques of self-interested fanatics is that individual beings from outside the universe created each life-form and evolved it through intelligent self-design.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I dont pretend to know. Most humans starve for answers to chaos. IDK why they cant be patient instead of throwing away logic and reality.

Fear of the unknown would be my guess.

Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.

What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.

Life entered a rock.

 

[K9Buck]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

Autogenesis

The alternative that is suppressed by the two cliques of self-interested fanatics is that individual beings from outside the universe created each life-form and evolved it through intelligent self-design.

I have no problem with that.

Question.

Who created them?

 

[irosie91]

A crushingly stupid OP. No, we do not know exactly what path abiogenesis took, among the very many that look possible at present. However, the answer to the question posed in the title are the laws of physics and chemistry.

That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.

Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.

I could bore you with a lengthy copy and paste of a rebuttal. Suffice it to say, anyone who claims they can take non-living matter and CREATE life from it is FULL OF SHIT.

true-----just as anyone who claims the ability to BUILD A SUN is full of shit. --------so?

So you believe the universe created itself?

a fortuitous combination of CARBON atoms-----oxygen atoms and very ubiquitous hydrogen atoms----BUMPED
into each other for eons and eons------with a lot of ENERGY thrown in. ORGANIC MOLECULES came about.

the complex molecules began to wiggle. ------abiogenesis did 'happen'

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So the story of the film so far, God creates but doesn't need a creator for himself...are you sure he has a penis?

Something or someone has to break the chain by being the first WITHOUT a cause. Do you agree or disagree?

Mind Over Matter

You have no logical right to make it one being; it is all beings. And all those have always been.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

Autogenesis

The alternative that is suppressed by the two cliques of self-interested fanatics is that individual beings from outside the universe created each life-form and evolved it through intelligent self-design.

I have no problem with that.

Question.

Who created them?

"You Can't Use Prime Movers Because I Already Own That"

It's the same answer that you give to "Who created God?" So the fact that you in particular ask it of others is begging the question.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.

Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.

I could bore you with a lengthy copy and paste of a rebuttal. Suffice it to say, anyone who claims they can take non-living matter and CREATE life from it is FULL OF SHIT.

true-----just as anyone who claims the ability to BUILD A SUN is full of shit. --------so?

So you believe the universe created itself?

a fortuitous combination of CARBON atoms-----oxygen atoms and very ubiquitous hydrogen atoms----BUMPED
into each other for eons and eons------with a lot of ENERGY thrown in. ORGANIC MOLECULES came about.

the complex molecules began to wiggle. ------abiogenesis did 'happen'

Despite NA$A's lies, the odds of that happening are almost impossible. They are so astronomical that we are probably the only planet with life in the entire universe.

 

[K9Buck]

That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.

Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.

I could bore you with a lengthy copy and paste of a rebuttal. Suffice it to say, anyone who claims they can take non-living matter and CREATE life from it is FULL OF SHIT.

true-----just as anyone who claims the ability to BUILD A SUN is full of shit. --------so?

So you believe the universe created itself?

a fortuitous combination of CARBON atoms-----oxygen atoms and very ubiquitous hydrogen atoms----BUMPED
into each other for eons and eons------with a lot of ENERGY thrown in. ORGANIC MOLECULES came about.

the complex molecules began to wiggle. ------abiogenesis did 'happen'

And how did they come into existence? Did they create themselves?

 

[K9Buck]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

Autogenesis

The alternative that is suppressed by the two cliques of self-interested fanatics is that individual beings from outside the universe created each life-form and evolved it through intelligent self-design.

I have no problem with that.

Question.

Who created them?

"You Can't Use Prime Movers Because I Already Own That"

It's the same answer that you give to "Who created God?" So the fact that you in particular ask it of others is begging the question.

There had to be a first that didn't need a cause to exist. If not a creator, then who?