What caused life to come into existence?

[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?

Logoi

"A first...a Creator"---you push an untrue restriction that a plural number of souls cannot be self-created. Besides, creation requires a beginning. But there was no beginning; all the souls, or life-forces, have always been there. Since they are not material, they don't even require a universe to stand by in.

Do you believe all of us have been living all along in eternity?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

 

[rightwinger]

The universe had a beginning. Prior to its beginning, it didn't exist. Someone or something caused the universe to come into existence. It most assuredly did not create itself. That is impossible.

Skeptics say "Who created the creator?" To which I say, something had to come first that didn't require a causation. Right?

I will add that there is other "evidence" of a creator that supports my belief in said creator. From what I've seen, atheists tend to be pretty close-minded and illogical when it comes to the subject of a creator to the point that they're positing that the universe created itself and life formed from lightning hitting some minerals. And then they accuse me of believing in a magic sky fairy. LMAO!

You dismiss the idea that matter could always exist
Yet you embrace the idea of a creator who always existed

Matter does not go "poof" and create itself

 

[K9Buck]

The universe had a beginning. Prior to its beginning, it didn't exist. Someone or something caused the universe to come into existence. It most assuredly did not create itself. That is impossible.

Skeptics say "Who created the creator?" To which I say, something had to come first that didn't require a causation. Right?

I will add that there is other "evidence" of a creator that supports my belief in said creator. From what I've seen, atheists tend to be pretty close-minded and illogical when it comes to the subject of a creator to the point that they're positing that the universe created itself and life formed from lightning hitting some minerals. And then they accuse me of believing in a magic sky fairy. LMAO!

You dismiss the idea that matter could always exist
Yet you embrace the idea of a creator who always existed

Matter does not go "poof" and create itself

I don't believe matter has always existed. I could be wrong.

 

[K9Buck]

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?

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

I don't share your belief. I believe our universe had a beginning that coincided with the beginning of time.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

 

[K9Buck]

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?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You seem a bit eccentric.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

I don't share your belief. I believe our universe had a beginning that coincided with the beginning of time.

And that is all it is, a belief. A belief that you decided because it was convenient for you, nothing more. It's like saying today is Tuesday because I like Tuesdays.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're the dumbest sentient species in the entire universe

 

[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.

That we haven't figured out yet the how doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like gravity, the explanation existed before we discovered it.

Hypotheses Non Fingo

A description or formula is not an "explanation." Saying so is as aggressively stupid as saying, "Newton invented gravity." Your gurus are silly nerd losers. Their science should be mocked as much as their pathetic social life is.

 

[K9Buck]

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?

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

I don't share your belief. I believe our universe had a beginning that coincided with the beginning of time.

And that is all it is, a belief. A belief that you decided because it was convenient for you, nothing more. It's like saying today is Tuesday because I like Tuesdays.

Big bang.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

I don't share your belief. I believe our universe had a beginning that coincided with the beginning of time.

And that is all it is, a belief. A belief that you decided because it was convenient for you, nothing more. It's like saying today is Tuesday because I like Tuesdays.

Big bang.

And what of before the Big Bang. Imagine the universe is like a bicycle tire, only a person is holding on part of the bicycle tire so that only one atom may get through it. Then imagine that there's a Big Bang and all the matter gets thrown around the bicycle tire and then as it gets back closer to the little hole that only an atom can get through all this matter, going so fast, ends up converging at the same point, and then causes another Big Bang and it goes around again.

It's a possibility. One of many. The Big Bang might have been the start of something, but probably wasn't the start of all the matter.

 

[Taz]

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.

That we haven't figured out yet the how doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like gravity, the explanation existed before we discovered it.

Hypotheses Non Fingo

A description or formula is not an "explanation." Saying so is as aggressively stupid as saying, "Newton invented gravity." Your gurus are silly nerd losers. Their science should be mocked as much as their pathetic social life is.

Gravity is a force of nature that was discovered by Newton. You have a problem with that?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That we haven't figured out yet the how doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like gravity, the explanation existed before we discovered it.

Hypotheses Non Fingo

A description or formula is not an "explanation." Saying so is as aggressively stupid as saying, "Newton invented gravity." Your gurus are silly nerd losers. Their science should be mocked as much as their pathetic social life is.

Gravity is a force of nature that was discovered by Newton. You have a problem with that?

Gravity is just a theory

It is God who makes things fall to earth

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

Logoi

"A first...a Creator"---you push an untrue restriction that a plural number of souls cannot be self-created. Besides, creation requires a beginning. But there was no beginning; all the souls, or life-forces, have always been there. Since they are not material, they don't even require a universe to stand by in.

Do you believe all of us have been living all along in eternity?

Frozen Sperm

Our life-force has. But it doesn't have an individuality until it occupies a woman's fertilized egg. It's like asking whether you lived in a sperm bank before you were conceived.

Memory itself has to occupy a living being, so all previous experience is forgotten. Believing other wise is like claiming that whatever your parents learned before you were born is what you already know at birth.

 

[irosie91]

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?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You parroted a silly response. The issue is not the EXISTENCE of organic molecules----the issue
is the POTENTIAL of organic molecules for such developments as aggregation and progression to
self replication and-----SO ON---------open up yer mine---------after a billion years you developed something
like CHEMO RECEPTORS-------and those-----in some families (perhaps not yours) continued on to
aggregated into a rostral clump that -------well--nevah mind----your rostrum stopped developing at that point

 

[K9Buck]

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?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You parroted a silly response. The issue is not the EXISTENCE of organic molecules----the issue
is the POTENTIAL of organic molecules for such developments as aggregation and progression to
self replication and-----SO ON---------open up yer mine---------after a billion years you developed something
like CHEMO RECEPTORS-------and those-----in some families (perhaps not yours) continued on to
aggregated into a rostral clump that -------well--nevah mind----your rostrum stopped developing at that point

Hitting the bong early today, eh?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We're the dumbest sentient species in the entire universe

MENSA Motto: "If it's Weird, It's Wise."

Instead of claiming something that makes you feel superior to all of mankind, why don't you man up to the intellectual authorities? Our High IQs are childish, gutless, and escapist nerd losers.

 

[irosie91]

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?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You parroted a silly response. The issue is not the EXISTENCE of organic molecules----the issue
is the POTENTIAL of organic molecules for such developments as aggregation and progression to
self replication and-----SO ON---------open up yer mine---------after a billion years you developed something
like CHEMO RECEPTORS-------and those-----in some families (perhaps not yours) continued on to
aggregated into a rostral clump that -------well--nevah mind----your rostrum stopped developing at that point

Hitting the bong early today, eh?

I have no experience at all with BONG-------does it confuse the mind like alcohol? . Alcohol does not
confuse me------it makes me unsteady and sometimes GIGGLY

 

[Skull Pilot]

...the energy that runs along our neural pathways never disappears and the matter we are composed of will remain in the system that is the universe.

View attachment 150898

Actually you imply that you consciousness remains.

I do not believe that