What caused life to come into existence?

[rightwinger]

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'

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

Can God?

I believe so. After all, we're here.

Show me in a lab environment
Show where it is repeatable

 

[MarkDuffy]

When you drive to the store, do you make random turns until you magically arrive at the supermarket

Anal and lame

 

[ScienceRocks]

When you drive to the store, do you make random turns until you magically arrive at the supermarket

Anal and lame

The question is would god? You'd think the guy would be rational and would just create the damn final product.

Evolution fits the bill as climate forcing and survival dictates its course.

 

[MarkDuffy]

When you drive to the store, do you make random turns until you magically arrive at the supermarket

Anal and lame

The question is would god? You'd think the guy would be rational and would just create the damn final product.

Evolution fits the bill as climate forcing and survival dictates its course.

A truly Intelligent Designer would make us not need a store

 

[Moonglow]

When you drive to the store, do you make random turns until you magically arrive at the supermarket

Anal and lame

The question is would god? You'd think the guy would be rational and would just create the damn final product.

Evolution fits the bill as climate forcing and survival dictates its course.

A truly Intelligent Designer would make us not need a store

Yes, damn terlit paper..

 

[MarkDuffy]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.

Why create man at all?

God just needs to create angels and cut out the middleman

 

[Moonglow]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.

Why create man at all?

God just needs to create angels and cut out the middleman

And what was that episode with dinosaurs about?

 

[K9Buck]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The one question science cannot answer is how the stuff of the universe, whether living or not, got there in the first place. The true agnostic doesn't know. The person of faith attributes it to a Supreme Being or Intelligence by whatever name. The Atheist shrugs it all off as coincidental and diverts from the original question by attacking or belittling the person asking the question.

I happen to go with the Creator/Intelligent Design camp while freely admitting I don't have a clue what he/she/it had in mind or exactly how it was all accomplished.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.

Why create man at all?

God just needs to create angels and cut out the middleman

And what was that episode with dinosaurs about?

Yes! That was a pretty big deal and at least as noteworthy as the flood, but didn't make it out of the editing room at Bible central.

 

[Moonglow]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.

Why create man at all?

God just needs to create angels and cut out the middleman

And what was that episode with dinosaurs about?

Yes! That was a pretty big deal and at least as noteworthy as the flood, but didn't make it out of the editing room at Bible central.

Short of quills again? Damn bottlenecks from purgatory...

 

[Moonglow]

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.

The one question science cannot answer is how the stuff of the universe, whether living or not, got there in the first place. The true agnostic doesn't know. The person of faith attributes it to a Supreme Being by whatever name. The Atheist shrugs it all off as coincidental and diverts from the original question by attacking or belittling the person asking the question.

I happen to go with the Creator/Intelligent Design camp while freely admitting I don't have a clue how he/she/it had in mind or exactly how it was all accomplished.

I just concentrate on my next joint...

 

[MarkDuffy]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

How could God share something like life he doesn't himself have? If God does not need life, why should we?

 

[Old Rocks]

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'

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

Many of the individual steps that may have been part of the process can, indeed, be replicated in the lab. From the chemical evidence in rocks, life came into being in the first half billion years, about 4 billion years ago, on this planet.

From Self-Assembled Vesicles to Protocells

From Self-Assembled Vesicles to Protocells
Irene A. Chen1 and Peter Walde2
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:
Abstract

 

[Moonglow]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

But the Angels rebelled over it......Inlaws damn if they don't fight the worst..

 

[Old Rocks]

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'

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

Can God?

I believe so. After all, we're here.

You believe so, many do not. Or believe in another deity.

 

[MarkDuffy]

So God gave us the gift of life, told us to believe in him, then warned us we would be persecuted if we did.

Where's the gift?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

Really? There are a lot of humanity that are definitely not lovable. Auschwitz.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

Really? There are a lot of humanity that are definitely not lovable. Auschwitz.

Hitler is another one of God's gift of love

 

[Foxfyre]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

How could God share something like life he doesn't himself have? If God does not need life, why should we?

If we understand much of anything about a God with powers to create a universe like ours, God wouldn't be much of a God would he? The wise person of faith accepts that. The scoffers try to pretend they know more than God. I'm pretty sure that won't end as a draw.