Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

Actally it is abiogenesis.

It may be evolution's most famous experiment, but as any creationist who reads this blog should know, it's not evolution since self replication is not happening. Well, maybe it is but that's not what is being tested for.

So much for demonstrating the ignorance of those who attack science.

And call it an Icon of Evolution :-)

Oh, I thought that the Urey-Miller experiment had nothing to do with evolution.

1953 not 1983

1983 was the experiment with a more realistic atmosphere.

The Urey-Miller experiment is referred to in Icons of Evolution as one of the Icons. Whatever it is considered to be, it is an often misunderstood experiment, and the creationists have made much of the 1983 experiments by Miller which failed to show significant yields of amino acids in more realistic atmospheres.

I agree that Miller-Urey may be a famous experiment (as experiments go), but it has little to do with evolution. Kettlewell's experiments are just as famous, and far more relevant to the theory of evolution.

Oh, I thought that the Urey-Miller experiment had nothing to do with evolution.

I agree. Abiogenesis is not really part of evolutionary theory. However, part of the reason for PT is to address creationist claims and this definitely qualifies. Therefore, people should be free to discuss the topic here if they choose, or not.

I have often thought that the reflexive response to Creo harping on the unsolved status of abiogenesis: "Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" was unsatisfying.

It's true as far as it goes, though; lack of clarity about the origins of a system does not compromise understanding of how that system operates. So, it is certainly no blemish on Evolutionary theory that abiogenesis is still a relative mystery.

But, it is not the case that the two "have nothing to do" with each other. We aspire, certainly, to extend the explanatory power of evolutionary reasoning deeper into the past; we recognize that appending an account of abiogenesis onto the theory will extend and strengthen it. In short, we want to know, badly, the origins of the first biological replicators on Earth, and strongly suspect that natural selection has its roots in those earliest forays into living.

So, I think the answer needs to be more nuanced.
"It's true that abiogenesis is currently not solved. But,by the means of an inventive and lively interdisciplinary research effort, strides are being made every day, and there is no reason, in principle, to believe that the scientific method is inadequate to the task. Evolution is no worse an explanation for the diversity of life since its origin for lacking a theory of abiogenesis, and will only become stronger once its methods are applied to this, and other, currently unsolved problems."

Anyway, in some way, the answer should admit that we want evolution to at least partially encompass life's origins and highlight that it's a strength of science, not a weakness, that it is able to move toward new horizons rather than settling into stagnation and dogma, like creationism.

Evolution is how life changes over time.

Abiogenesis is how life arose from nonlife in the first place.

The two questions aren't the same.

Nevertheless they are closely linked as part of the same subject, the study of life over time. Obviously, if life hadn't arose, there would be nothing to evolve.

The creos don't just object to evolution. They object to anything not in accord with a very literal reading of a creation myth. Physicists get it because of the big bang and because the universe is 13.7 billion years old instead of 6010. Geologists and paleontologists get it for insisting it takes more than a week to make rock from sediment and finding all those dinosaurs and whatnot.

Apparently Freud is on their list too. Not clear to me what he did. Sometimes it seems like this is just medieval demonology updated.

The claim that the early Archean was not strongly reduced was popular in the 1970s and '80s. You can find it in one of the most widely referenced text books on the subject,

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 "The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans," Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

However, this was based on computational models now abandoned, geochemical data that has been "revised," and is ion any event no longer the prevailing position.

For a more current assesment see;

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 "When did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A Reply." The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22

In short, the early earth atmosphere and oceans were moderately to strongly reducing and certainly had local basins that were strongly reduced. Newer models of the earth's formation show that the earth's volatiles would have survived the great impact, and in fact would have captured a significant amount of the impactor's atmosphere. ( see; Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka 2003 "Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical aspects" Icarus 164, 149-162.) These models are sucessful in accounting for the sorts of gas ratios observed and not consistant with earlier models (volcanic out gassing, etc...see; Pepin, R. O. 1997 "Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss Driven by Giant Impact" Icarus 126, 148-156).

Bada's new result means that the redox question is much less significant than people have thought for the last 30+ years which is great.

I have often thought that the reflexive response to Creo harping on the unsolved status of abiogenesis: "Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" was unsatisfying.

Re "physics, geology, fossils, Marxism, Freud, global warming, satan, and on and on."

Well of course. The various branches of science are separated for convenience of understanding them, but they do all study the same universe, they just emphasize different aspects of it.

Though I don't get how Marxism got in the list; that's not a study of a physical aspect of our universe.

As for Satan, well, obviously he/she/it planted all those fossils... (I'm ducking for cover now!)

Henry

Raven sighed.... ... it is obvious that the creos aren't very well educated or clear, coherent thinkers... ... it is hard to even ... come up with a reply they might understand.

What would be the impact, so to speak, of the recent speculations that icy comet impacts could have provided the currently observed volume of water to a somewhat cooled, very early earth?

I can see the response being formulated now... "If we formed from amino acids, how come amino acids are still around?"

"What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids."

Simple atoms being formed into molecules without intelligence? Absurd! It violates the second law of thermodynamics, don't ya know? I think we can safely ignore this empirical evidence.

abiogenesis is to evolution as string theory is to the atomic structure of matter. You can study and make testable predictions about "B" without a working theory of "A". For a fully cohesive theory it would be nice to have all your ducks in a row but no one ever said science was easy. Has anyone read the book or listened to the Teaching Company course by Prof Robert Hazen of George Mason Univ. who reviews the current status of published work on this subject?

Pro from Dover,

I read Hazen's Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins about a year ago, and I would definitely recommend it.

I wonder if we can goad the DI into shooting off another foot on this one?

Who wants to tease them with .....er actual science and empirical facts (ö)?

They wouldn't do anything until it got on one of the big 'news' services anyway.

Why don't you all just go ahead an create life, and show those creationists whats what!

I think it is critical to differentiate strongly between evolution and abiogenesis.

For these simple reasons -

1) We have an excellent understanding of evolution. We have an extremely strong theory of evolution. One possible reason for this is that evolution is both a past and present phenomenon. We can observe its mechanisms in the present.
2) Despite excellent work, there are still only incomplete hypotheses of abiogenesis. One possible reason is that we do not observe abiogenesis in the present.

An imaginary observer at the time of life's origin might be in the opposite position - able to see how it was originating, but less able to know how it would evolve.

Of course the two are logically related in some ways, but it is quite clear that they are distinct, and one is understood much better than the other.

Why don't you all just go ahead an create life, and show those creationists whats what!

However, be sure you do it by a mindless process.

And don't you dare have a goal in mind as you begin the process!

Thats a NO NO.

Another creationist Icon (strawman) seems to have bitten the dust.

Apparently Freud is on their list too. Not clear to me what he did.

Well, amongst other things, he was a famous and outspoken atheist. I don't know what exactly gets him on the list as opposed to other atheists.

You must be joking ! I'll look forward to the YEC response. Something is bound to appear on the AiG website over the next few days.

Well, amongst other things, he was a famous and outspoken atheist. I don't know what exactly gets him on the list as opposed to other atheists.

Re "So why are all the dinosaurs extinct?"

I'd suppose the carnivores on the ark had to eat something during the trip, and during the period after the trip while ecosystems were still establishing themselves?

Henry

I'd suppose the carnivores on the ark had to eat something during the trip...

That sounds like a sequel (prequel?) to Jurassic Park. :lol:

Henry

Just to inject a slightly different perspective on this topic, may I suggest a look at the following:

Elements: An International Magazine of Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and Petrology
Special Issue: Rocks, Minerals, and the Geochemical Origin of Life (V. 1, No. 3, June 2005)

The articles examine the influence of normal geological processes (volcanism, weathering, geochemical processes) and the catalytic functions that many minerals such as clays, zeolites, feldspars and sulfides could have provided for the earliest life forms. This is something that seems to be generally lacking in many discussions concerning the origins of life, and yet it had to have played some role.

BTW, this issue of Elements did trigger the standard blind rage rhetoric from grandfather cretin H. Morris, resulting in a very measured rebuff letter by Robert Hazen in the Dec. 2005 issue of Elements (V1, No. 5).

Here are the article titles FYI:

Cairns-Smith, A. G.: Sketches for a Mineral Genetic Material.

Cody, G. D.: Geochemical Connections to Primitive Metabolism.

Ferris, J. P.: Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA.

Hazen, R. M.: Genesis: Rocks, Minerals, and the Geochemical Origin of Life.

Smith, J. V.: Geochemical Influences on Life's Origins and Evolution. Elements.

Just being a freshman, and new to these issues I don't understand why it is so hard to create life. If it happened by a mindless process, IF, then it should be even easier with teams of the best scientists working on it. Whats the deal?

"In the March 28, 2007 edition of Scientific American, Douglas Fox reports on the results of renewed experiments based on the original work by Stanley Miller."

So now all they need do is make a living cell from those chemicals.

If evolutionists really want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

There are two excellent answers to James Collins (repeated) assertions on the YouTube thread, by Raging Bee and Richard Simons.

James, you've repeated yourself word-for-word instead of answering those comments. Do you think that by repeating the same thing again makes it any more sensible or true?

Oh, that's right, that's a typical Creationist tactic.

If evolutionists really want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

1. Abiogenesis is not evolution. These are 2 separate questions. This has been covered on this thread several times. Do try to keep up and trying thinking and reading before you post.

Now, what conflicts with this view is subsumed under the general rubric "evolution".

if anybody was to decide the best theory, it would be judged best by the people- not under their noses. most people wouldn't think to get into things as old and basic as the evolutionary theory.

why do we keep putting the theory aside,people need to either pick a creationist , or face the facts.

so, whats the big deal?

I'm only 13 and in 7Th grade and i am in to this theory- why don't other people.

Evolution is the study of how life changes through time. It is an English word with a specific meaning in biology. Lumping it in with abiogenesis, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, marxism, freud, family planning, global warming, the Catholic church and the other demons is lazy, confused thinking and a misuse of the English language. Sounds like the creos don't much care for most of modern 21st science.

Hyrum -

You say it should be "easy" for humans to create life if the origin of life was a natural process (I hope that's a fair paraphrase). However, it should be obvious that there are a great many natural processes in the universe that humans can't duplicate. Take the creation of the moon, for example. We have a fairly good idea how that may have happened, and it's a fairly minor natural process.

As I pointed out, we don't know how life originated. I happen to think it originated naturally, but I don't know how, and it's not something we can duplicate easily.

You seem to be confused about the use of terms like "goal" when describing evolution. When an apple falls from a tree, we don't say that it was guided by a "goal". We don't ascribe "goals" to natural phenomenae like gravity or electricity. Evolution is something natural that happens. With one obvious but indirect exception, it is not directly guided by the wishes or goals of the individual organisms it impacts. It is questionable whether goals or wishes should be ascribed to insects, plants, microbes and so on at any rate. The obvious exception is the indirect case where human beings guide the evolution of agricultural and pet species according to human goals.

Whether the physical universe reflects or is guided by some underlying purpose or goal is an entirely seperate issue. Evolution is just a natural process that has been occuring.

If it happened by a mindless process, IF, then it should be even easier with teams of the best scientists working on it.

Why don't you all just go ahead an create life, and show those creationists whats what! However, be sure you do it by a mindless process. And don't you dare have a goal in mind as you begin the process! Thats a NO NO.

Raven:
I think Flint was paraphrasing the creationist viewpoint, not endorsing it.

If/when scientists ever create life, I think a likely fourth response from creationists would be shifting goal posts. "See - it took an intelligence on the part of the scientist to create that life. Until you observe abiogenesis happening in nature with no intelligent guidance, you've done nothing to prove your Darwinian ideology."

It also reminds me of the old joke about a scientist getting into an argument with God, talking about all the things people can do now thanks to science. And getting down to the punchline, God challenges the scientist to create new life, and just as the scientist is getting ready to do it, God takes away all his materials and says, "But start with your own dirt."

I think the distinction has to be made between discovering one origin of life and discovering the origin of life. There are currently several plausible explanations for several stages in the process of abiogenesis. The problem becomes figuring out which, if any, of those explanations it he correct one. It may turn out that in the end we have dozens of equally likely permutations of various possible paths abiogenesis could have taken at various stages in the process. There may be no way to determine the precise sequence taken out of numerous possibilities.

But that does not mean we would not understand abiogenesis. On the contrary, we would understand it too well. That seems to be a significant part of the problem now. It is not that we haven't been able to figure out (partially) any mechanisms that could account for the origin of life, we have been able to figure out too many and we have not way of identifying the correct one yet. Creationists like to portray our lack of an answer as a total lack of knowledge. But it is better described as an overabundance of knowledge in certain areas and a relative lack of knowledge in others.

Lumping it in with abiogenesis, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, marxism, freud, family planning, global warming, the Catholic church and the other demons is lazy, confused thinking and a misuse of the English language.

Just being a freshman, and new to these issues I don't understand why it is so hard to create life.

— Hyrum

There is no need to assume that abiogenisis occurred but once. It suffices to consider that abiogensis occurred at least once...

james collins: If evolutionists really want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell.

Molecular Systems Biology 2 Article number: 45 doi:10.1038/msb4100090 Published online: 22 August 2006 Citation: Molecular Systems Biology 2:45 Towards synthesis of a minimal cell Anthony C Forster1 and George M Church2 Received 7 May 2006; Accepted 26 July 2006; Published online 22 August 2006 Top of pageAbstract Construction of a chemical system capable of replication and evolution, fed only by small molecule nutrients, is now conceivable. This could be achieved by stepwise integration of decades of work on the reconstitution of DNA, RNA and protein syntheses from pure components. Such a minimal cell project would initially define the components sufficient for each subsystem, allow detailed kinetic analyses and lead to improved in vitro methods for synthesis of biopolymers, therapeutics and biosensors. Completion would yield a functionally and structurally understood self-replicating biosystem. Safety concerns for synthetic life will be alleviated by extreme dependence on elaborate laboratory reagents and conditions for viability. Our proposed minimal genome is 113 kbp long and contains 151 genes. We detail building blocks already in place and major hurdles to overcome for completion.

Safety concerns for synthetic life will be alleviated by extreme dependence on elaborate laboratory reagents and conditions for viability.

I'm afraid I am going to have to conclude that James Collins' argument is the second worst creationist argument ever.

Number one (from the bottom) will always be -

"If we 'came from' apes, why are there still apes?"

Most succinct answer - "If white Americans 'came from' Europeans, why are there still people in Europe?".

Number two (from the bottom) -

"If life had a natural origin, why isn't it 'easy' for scientists to create life?"

Most succinct answer -

"If the moon/the sun/the milky way/black holes/any individual planet/dinosaurs/any individual famous human, racehorse, or dog who ever lived/volcanic eruptions/hurricanes/earthquakes/etc, etc, etc, had a natural origin, why isn't it 'easy' for scientists to 'create' (whatever)?"

harold,
Would the "2nd law of t.d." argument be in third place?

Henry

QUOTE"However, creationists like Jonathan Wells will be there to expose their balderdash to thinking people in society at large."

i agree, Wells & Co expose their balderdash quite well to us thinking people

If somebody exposed his balderdash in front of me, I'd call the police tout suite!

If evolutionists really want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

Erlenmeyer says, "The inability of scientists to create life, while not really an argument for theism, is certainly not an argument of atheism, either."
That's so true-- but no aspect of evolution or abiogenesis is, of itself, an argument for either theism or atheism. Some people find the fact of evolution makes their choice of atheism more intellectually satisfying. Others believe that evolution is the working out of God's will. Neither philosophical position-- or any other religious dogma-- should be the subject of public school science classes.

Re "If somebody exposed his balderdash in front of me, I'd call the police tout suite!"

Hmmm. Do ya s'pose the laws about indecent exposure actually cover the uncovering of one's balderdash?

Henry

...all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell.

Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Posters are right about creating cells and genomes from scratch. The minimum cell project is one such and shows how close our technology is. We've already recreated the polio and 1918 flu viruses from bottles of reagents. The next step of designing new viruses is very, very, short.

They are also right that it wouldn't make any difference to the creos. They would just say, see it took a designer(s) which proves god exists. Evolution sits on top of a 150 year old mountain of evidence and has been consistent with everything found in other scientific fields, physics, geology, etc.. Anyone who can ignore that can ignore anything.

To really answer abiogenesis rigorously would take:
1. a newly condensed planet in a habitable zone around a G class star with a primordial atmosphere.

2. After bombarding it with comets and debris, cool slightly and then simmer for 500 million years or so.

At some point this just gets silly. If scientists are so smart, why don't they just recreate the Big Bang? Of course if they did, that would be the last experiment for another 14 billion years or so.

Re "If scientists are so smart, why don't they just recreate the Big Bang? Of course if they did, that would be the last experiment for another 14 billion years or so."

Unless they make it in dimensions perpendicular to the ones we're using at the moment. ;)

Just being a freshman, and new to these issues I don't understand why it is so hard to create life. If it happened by a mindless process, IF, then it should be even easier with teams of the best scientists working on it. Whats the deal?

...all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. Wait. It's coming. Google the "Minimum Genome Project".

I don't see this experiment as vindicating abiogenesis at all.

"Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids."

Would primitive Earth have contained those things because of geologic evidence, or because they're needed to neutralize nitrates and acids so life can begin? The word "would" seems to suggest its a requirement for abiogenesis only, not grounded in evidence. Besides, why did it take 50 years to realize Miller forgot these two ingredients? For two decades following Miller, there were a flurry of similar experiments performed by many scientists. None produced the results desired.

"When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids."

How many different amino acids were produced? I was unable to find the published number and quantities.

Of course, scientists must still find the natural mechanism that excludes right-handed amino acids, otherwise life will not spontaneously form.

What of the tremendous evidence for an oxygen-rich atmosphere early in geologic history? Bada requires zero-to-minimal oxygen in the primitive Earth for his amino acids to form. Does he simply ignore the evidence for an oxygen-rich early atmosphere?

"Another creationist Icon (strawman) seems to have bitten the dust."

Such an absolute phrase! Considering these arguments "are extremely vulnerable to scientific knowledge," what basis do you have to say such a thing? For all you know, next year a scientist could say Bada's experiment does not represent primitive Earth at all.

By the way, I thought Flint's post #168851 was well-said and I agree with much of it. This is coming from a Creationist. However, if you do a simple search for "evolution" on this very page, you will find EVERYBODY associates abiogenesis under the umbrella of the framework/worldview/paradigm called "evolution." Given that, I suggest there are at least two definitions of "evolution" in play here: the scientific definition, and the name given to the paradigm.

And as a Creationist, I see non-Creationists attempting to distance themselves from abiogenesis, aka chemical evolution, aka spontaneous generation, because it is so tremendously unlikely to have occurred naturally, so non-Creationists quickly shout, "that's not evolution!" Yet it's REQUIRED for evolution to even begin. If spontaneous generation cannot happen, the paradigm of evolution is bunk.

In response to those that say, "we'll create life when we have a lab the size of the world and several million years," this just cinches the point of how general theories of the origin of life are unfalsifiable. Regarding specifics, such as amino acids forming in the primitive Earth, I would say this theory HAS been falsified with evidence for an oxygen-rich primitive atmosphere, but that never stops evolutionists from believing their theory as true, so in a sense, this can't be falsified either.

The "Minimum Genome Project", when/if successful, will look NOTHING like the conditions on the hypothetical primitive Earth, so will only show how intelligent scientists are at creating life and will prove nothing for abiogenesis, as Stevaroni pointed out. For that, millions of years will need to be provided. But that's impossible to demonstrate! So much for a falsifiable theory!

Buho;

Wow, rational debate! Never thought I'd see that again!

And I do appreciate it.

Still, you're wrong.

The problem is that this is not one of those "let's compromise" things. Something happened way back in the way-back that led, eventually, to us clever apes typing to each other on computers.

Given the present state of human knowledge, the two current contenders are Darwinian evolution, and some form of the hand of God.

One, and only one of these things likely occurred, and both of them should have left plentiful evidence behind. By examining this evidence, we ought to get a pretty good idea of what actually happened.

On this point, I think we should still be able to agree, right?

This is where diverge.

The creation argument has for years been based largely on negatives. Every single one I've seen points to some natural feature or Darwinian concept and says "This won't work".

It's always too complicated, or too unlikely, or defies some physical law or the other.

There is, simply, never, ever some positive proof offered, it's all some form of "Can't get there from here".

Science, on the other hand, continually discovers possible paths. Is any given path the one, true, answer? Probably not. But we're still looking, and every single thing we find removes another "couldn't" from mankind's book of knowledge.

Creationist "proof" depends on exclusion and impossibility - "There is no way bacterial flagellum could evolve, so by exclusion, it had to be the grace of God". To counter that you don't have to somehow demonstrate that you've found the exact, precise path the bacteria took, only that there were available paths, and visible evidence shows that at least some of them were trod.

It's like you insisting that the cat must still be in the house because there's no way it could possibly escape, and me pointing out that there are three open windows, and no cat to be found. No, it's not absolute proof, but it still shoots big holes in your theory.

In this vein, the Miller/Urey/Fox experiments are important. No, they're not an absolute eureka moment, but clearly, the demonstration that it's possible to produce organic molecules without divine intervention goes a long way to demolishing yet another creationist "impossibility".

Which, respectfully, is all creationists really have.

Creationists will continue to complain "Evolution can't prove exactly how the first cell came to be", but we both know that's a straw man.

Those events were so small and lost so far back in the sands of time they will likely never be found. Still, we can make reasonable inferences based on what we do know.

The fact is that we're pretty sure we can trace the tree back though it's myriad branches to tiny little organisms that lived about a billion years ago. And that's where the trail goes cold.

But that can't be honestly conflated to the larger creationist claim that because we don't know everything, it means we really know nothing.

I assume that, you, like me, know a lot about your parents, and a good deal about your grandparents, some smattering of information about your great grandparents, and so on. I also assume that based on the observable laws of biology being what they are, both of us actually have great-great-great-great-great grandparents, even though neither of us knows the first thing about them. (providing, of course, that I'm not addressing French royalty here, or something).

Buho said: If spontaneous generation cannot happen, the paradigm of evolution is bunk.

Stevaroni:

Thanks for the compliment.

I get a feeling that your biggest complaint with Creationists is that we operate on negatives. Ten potential explanations, conclude convincingly that one of the ten is impossible, then say, well, it absolutely must be option #3 then: God did it. The non-Creationist, on the other hand, finds new potential explanations while closing others. I'd just like to say that, while I can't represent all Creationists, from my personal perspective, there seems to be a tendency for Creationists to point out that our theory, though it does not move, continues to be vindicated. It's akin to a person asking a group of people for ideas, and in the back there's that annoying kid that nobody likes who is waving his hand saying "I have an idea! I have an idea!" and the person deliberately ignores the kid, saying "anybody... anybody..." because nobody likes him. (A fun sketch in comedies.) Creationists hold onto "option #3" and watch how not much doubt is cast on option #3 but options 1, 2, and 4 through 32 have been shown to be impossible, and then look at the currently-open options #33-39 as probably not lasting very long. We insist, why is #3 so objectionable? Seems like a logical question to me.

At this point I am obliged to thank the non-Creationists for all of their hard work -- indeed, Creationists seem to get a little lazy when God has already told us how things happened. For instance, I would not be nearly as motivated to search for extrasolar planets as those who are bent on vindicating evolution by finding life on other planets. However, I absolutely marvel at the discoveries made! Ironically, Creationists benefit from the hard work of the non-Creationists, and we must thank you for it. But to say that we work from negative evidence is a bit of a caricature, in my opinion.
Both Creationists and non-Creationists are discovering evidence that both sides can use. The Creationist's position does not move, therefore does not have to re-establish his position continually by affirming positive hypotheses. Non-Creationists, however, must continually create new stances with positive hypotheses because the old hypotheses were demolished. This isn't exactly a rebuttal, just an off-the-cuff personal observation.

"The fact is that we're pretty sure we can trace the tree back though it's myriad branches to tiny little organisms that lived about a billion years ago. And that's where the trail goes cold."

But the Creationist asserts that this lineage is an illusion. The fossil record exhibits far more stasis than change. "Living fossils" abound and evolution is relegated to "instants" of rapid morphology. "Convergent evolution" creates statistical problems and does not align well with the general theory of evolution. All of those things make MUCH more sense in a Biblical framework, that creatures were created at once. To top it off, "the trail" that goes cold at the origin of life is explained clearly and logically with the Biblical framework. Going further, the problems with the Big Bang and the Prime Cause are avoided with the Biblical framework.

Science Avenger suggests the Biblical framework is contradictory, but in my studies I've found it to be logically coherent. What's wrong with #3?

Yes, #3 is unfalsifiable, just as the assertion that all life came from rocks. But #3 has falsifiable tenets that remain unfalsified to this day. (For example, Creationists predict a "downward" and "smallward" progression of the genetic pool over time; evolutionists predict the opposite.)

"It's like you insisting that the cat must still be in the house because there's no way it could possibly escape, and me pointing out that there are three open windows, and no cat to be found. No, it's not absolute proof, but it still shoots big holes in your theory."

You insinuate that Creationists ignore evidence, which is false. But if it is shown that the windows are 30 feet off the floor with no accessible way to get to them, we are justified in saying that it is quite improbable for the cat to have left the house and must still be in it somewhere. (Declaring an absolute negative requires absolute knowledge, which we are usually short of. Atheists have this problem.) What would you have Creationists do? NOT measure the height of the windows? That would be scientifically inconsiderate of us!

It's strange for me to say it, but I'm starting to think that Creationists and Evolutionists are spurring each other on to do better science, though it would the Creationists happy to see Evolutionists realize that they are wrong.

+ + + + +

While I'm here, I'd like to ask what you all think of this old Creationist metaphor: Take a frog and put it in a blender, and blend the frog until it is disassembled down to the component molecules. Wouldn't this make an ideal "primordial soup" from which to create life? All of the proteins and DNA fragments are there. Free ATP is floating around. All of the 20 amino acids are present in large quantities, and they are all left-handed. Add electricity or heat and a simple cell should form spontaneously, right?

Ironically, Creationists benefit from the hard work of the non-Creationists, and we must thank you for it.

Well, it's about time one of you admitted that biologists who understand and accept evolution get results, and creationists don't. So when are you guys going to return the favor?

But the Creationist asserts that this lineage [the tree of life] is an illusion.

An illusion which your God knowingly created? What other illusions -- a.k.a. lies -- has he created? And since you've just admitted that your God creates illusions, how do you know the Bible itself, which the same God allegedly inspired, isn't also packed with lies?

You insinuate that Creationists ignore evidence, which is false.

We've seen truckloads of cases in which creationists do just that. But you've ignored all of it, thus disproving your own argument.

It's strange for me to say it, but I'm starting to think that Creationists and Evolutionists are spurring each other on to do better science...

You give evolutionists too much credit: what "better science" have we been able to inspire you to do? We haven't seen one single peer-reviewed paper validating ANY incarnation of creationism; and when we flat-out ask you to produce something resembling honest science, as opposed to just PR and lies, you make lame excuses and disappear in a fog of name-calling and self-pity.

Take a frog and put it in a blender, and blend the frog until it is disassembled down to the component molecules. Wouldn't this make an ideal "primordial soup" from which to create life? All of the proteins and DNA fragments are there. Free ATP is floating around. All of the 20 amino acids are present in large quantities, and they are all left-handed. Add electricity or heat and a simple cell should form spontaneously, right?

There are two problems with such an experiment: first, it would not approximate the conditions under which life actually began; and second, if it were performed, the creationists would simply claim it proves their argument whatever the actual result.

What's wrong with #3?

IF "#3" is "goddidit," then it can be trotted out to explain everything, and thus nothing; and that's what's wrong with it. This is why no one seriously tries to use such "explanations" in accounting or criminal justice.

Yes, #3 is unfalsifiable, just as the assertion that all life came from rocks. But #3 has falsifiable tenets that remain unfalsified to this day. (For example, Creationists predict a "downward" and "smallward" progression of the genetic pool over time; evolutionists predict the opposite.)

First you say it's not falsifiable, then you say it is. Also, can you give us an example of '"downward" and "smallward" progression of the genetic pool over time?' Those drug-resistant viruses and bacteria don't seem to be evolving "downward."

The Creationist's position does not move, therefore does not have to re-establish his position continually by affirming positive hypotheses.

Translation: the creationist's position is completely unmoored from reality, and therefore does nto have to adjust to new observations of fact.

Non-Creationists, however, must continually create new stances with positive hypotheses because the old hypotheses were demolished.

Translation: real scientists adjust their explanations to account for new evidence.

So who are we supposed to believe -- the guy who admits and accepts new facts, or the guy who doesn't (and pretends his willful ignorance is a virtue to boot)?

first, [the frog-blender experiment] would not approximate the conditions under which life actually began

— Raging Bee

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

— Anthony Flew

would not this experiment represent impossibly-good conditions for the origin of life

Both Creationists and non-Creationists are discovering evidence that both sides can use.

Flew was the #1 greatest atheist for decades, and just a few years ago, convinced by the new evidence science was uncovering, became a Deist.

The Creationist's position does not move, therefore does not have to re-establish his position continually by affirming positive hypotheses.

Doesn't "knee jerk" generally refer to a reaction to something that one hasn't already encountered a large number of times before?

Henry

That hasn't should have been hasn't.

"No. The mixture would be full of enzymes all busily breaking down everything in sight."

But enzymes are critical for life. Anyway, I didn't want to argue that bit here. I was just curious what the response was by those that believe chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to produce life in the past.

"Please give me just one thing a creationist has discovered in the last 50 years that has been of use in evolutionary science."

You'll have to tell me; I'm not going to guess. I'm not that much interested in how evolutionists spin evidence to align to their worldview. But I can tell you (and you've probably already heard this) that there are thousands of scientists in the real world doing real science, producing real results, and finding new evidence -- evidence that both sides can use -- that believe in a literal six day creation a few thousand years ago. AiG has a fairly long list somewhere. I can point to a single example, the RATE project of ICR (helium in zircon, radiohalos, carbon in diamonds, etc.). They conducted experiments and the results can be filed side-by-side with the work the uniformitarians have amassed. I'm sure that their work will prove useful for some evolutionist in some way. RATE used the work of evolutionists to further their studies. It's evidence, not subject to debate. (Only the interpretation is open to debate.) What kind of scientist ignores some evidence?

"Apparently this was because [Flew] could not see how life started, not because of any new evidence."

So, if someone "follows the evidence" and concludes a deity created the first life, then that someone must be ignorant? "All REAL scientists believe the theory of evolution best fits the evidence." That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, thank you Flew.

You'll have to tell me; I'm not going to guess.

Translation: "I can't be bothered to back up any of my assertions, because I'm too lazy to get a real education and too scared to admit my ignorance."

I'm not that much interested in how evolutionists spin evidence to align to their worldview...

Obviously you're not interested enough to actually learn any actual science. So why should we be interested in what someone so ignorant and uncaring has to say?

...But I can tell you (and you've probably already heard this) that there are thousands of scientists in the real world doing real science, producing real results, and finding new evidence --- evidence that both sides can use --- that believe in a literal six day creation a few thousand years ago.

Yeah, we've heard that before. And here's a question you've surely heard before (and still refused to answer): How many peer-reviewed papers have these thousands of scientists published to prove their creation-story?

AiG has a fairly long list somewhere.

And you're too lazy to post a link even to that paltry bit of "evidence?" Go back to bed, Skippy.

I enjoyed Stevaroni's comments best. His comments are measured with reasonableness.

And you completely failed to refute any of his claims. Can we take this as an admission that he's right and you're wrong?

Yours are, to be polite, far from that. They are more akin to knee-jerk reactions, not thought out, lacking substance. It's as if you didn't read what I wrote. You misrepresent me on at least three occasions, and then use these misrepresentations to construct strawmen.

Refute my arguments, answer my questions, and specify exactly how and where I've misrepresented your statements, and I'll take your opinions seriously. Until then, all you're doing is pretending to find excuses to dodge arguments you can't handle.

And you completely failed to refute any of [stevaroni's] claims. Can we take this as an admission that he's right and you're wrong?

No, [the Miller/Urey/Fox experiments are] not an absolute eureka moment, but clearly, the demonstration that it's possible to produce organic molecules without divine intervention goes a long way to demolishing yet another creationist "impossibility".

— stevaroni

Nay, the negatives are serious and must be addressed by the evolutionists.

They HAVE been addressed, and creationists keep on ignoring it and pretending they haven't been addressed.

However, positives are brought fourth. Creationists assert that the massive genetic information present today was originally created...

By what mechanism? And how has that act of creation been proven to have happened? I don't remember anyone even describing the specific act, let alone describing how it could be proven or disproven.

...and has since steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

No one has even tried to quantify or measure this "information;" therefore, no, it's not falsifiable.

The first part, although positive, can be proven no more than the precise hypothetical environment that spawned the hypothetical first living cell.

If your positive assertion cannot be proven by scientific means, then it is not science, and should not be confused with science. If you want to make this assertion in your church, as a religious belief, that's perfectly okay; but if you call it "science," then you're participating in a con game.

But the second part is a positive assertion that is falsifiable.

No, it's not -- see my reference to the problem of quantifying and measuring "information."

...The evolutionist attempts to elaborate on the naturalistic Origin of Life, where the evolutionist must bear the burden of naturalistic processes.

Yes, that's how science is done. It's a lot of work, and if you don't do the work, you don't get the credit.

The Creationist, on the other hand, can't do the same.

Because he's making bald assertions based on faith, not on reason, experiment or observation. In other words, the creationist is not actually doing science, and when he says he is, he's lying. And he knows it.

God did it. That's our hypothesis.

If you can't describe HOW goddidit, then you can't prove or disprove it; and if you can't prove or disprove it, then it's not a "hypothesis." Get your terminology straight.

Does that make the Creationist hypothesis wrong? No.

No, it merely makes the creationist "hypothesis" scientifically vacuous. It's not a hypothesis, it's a belief. Learn the difference.

But I never said that.

Which is why I didn't say you said it.

The illusion is this: the tree of life exists only in the minds of evolutionists; nowhere in reality does the tree of life exist.

It is believed to exist based on a planet full of evidence -- all of which your God allegedly created.

You are employing devious debate tactics and conversational terrorism.

There's that phony "persecution" angle again. I must really scare the crap out of you if you're calling me a "terrorist."

What of the tremendous evidence for an oxygen-rich atmosphere early in geologic history?

Creationists assert that the massive genetic information present today was originally created, and has since steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

I state that the tree of life is not real (and then give evidence, which you ignore).

God did it. That's our hypothesis.

The evolutionist is unable to bring forth very many negatives to this hypothesis.

I am frequently an observer of weakly educated supporters of evolutionary theory yielding to only slightly better educated (or more persuasive) creationists regarding the origin of life.

This is happening on this thread, as in many others on many other internet BBs.

It is an example that I consider as "Blind leading the blind where the blind (party of the first part) has a predetermined destination."

It is fairly easy to BS about evolution and creationism without bothering with more than a few popular books and what one can gleen from lurking on a few BBs. Abiogenesis actually requires some work, and so it is the weakest point in the popular ev v cre sport.

Why Life's Genesis Is Unrepeatable

QUOTE (HenisDov @ May 18 2007, PhysForum)
A. If one accepts, intuitively and logically, Pasteur's observation .... We are just beginning to comprehend the nature of the raw material called Life and that the purpose of OUR life is ours to choose and develop and follow.
Dov

I am asked, by TracerTong, two questions:

A. Shouldn't it (life's genesis) be repeatable? Wouldn't scientists have already been able to repeat it?

B. What about 'spiritual' happenings? Is it logical to assume only 'natural' genesis?

My answers:

A. Today's "scientists" are unable to "repeat it" because (1) they do not know how the first "life" arose and (2) they do not and will never know and will not be able to duplicate the environments and circumstances of genesis and (3) they do not and will never know and will never be able to repeat the environments and circumstances of post genesis evolution.

B. "Spiritual happenings" are virtual reality affairs. They are feasible only for living organisms that have a culture, i.e. that have a pattern of sensings and reactions to the sensings. Genes, and therefore also genomes, are organisms and display virtual reality phenomena, therefore also multicelled organisms, like dogs and humans, display such "spiritual" phenomena.

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407

My answers:

A. Today’s “prophets” are unable to “repeat it” because (1) they do not know how the first “spirit” arose and (2) they do not and will never know and will not be able to duplicate the environments and circumstances of spirit genesis and (3) they do not and will never know and will never be able to repeat the environments and circumstances of post spirit evolution.

B. “Evolution” is a reality affair. It is feasible for living organisms that reproduce, i.e. that have a pattern of variation and reactions to the environment. Genes, and therefore also genomes, display such reality phenomena, therefore also multicelled organisms, like dogs and humans, display such “evolution” phenomena.

There that's better.

Creationists are just straight up ignorant a-holes.

No exceptions

Dov Henis said: A. Shouldn't it (life's genesis) be repeatable? Wouldn't scientists have already been able to repeat it? B. What about 'spiritual' happenings? Is it logical to assume only 'natural' genesis?