Origin of life?

[ribozyme]

Well, what do you people think about the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life and the alledged involvement of the Judeo-Christian deity. Any arguments does one have to offer against a naturalistic origin of life. I am simply curious about your knowledge regarding this complex topic.

My view is quite complicated, but I will say that we have no answer to this problem, and I think that scientific investigation is eventually yield an answer. Does anyone want to argue against this.

[dsb1808]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Well, what do you people think about the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life and the alledged involvement of the Judeo-Christian deity. Any arguments does one have to offer against a naturalistic origin of life. I am simply curious about your knowledge regarding this complex topic.

My view is quite complicated, but I will say that we have no answer to this problem, and I think that scientific investigation is eventually yield an answer. Does anyone want to argue against this.

Forgive me, but I have a question or two about your question. If you mean what would a Christian think of a naturalistic origin of life, then your answer is clear--a Christian would have to reject it as Christianity holds to God as a Creator. If you mean, what would Christians think about science demonstrating a naturalistic origin, then a Christian would have to say that such a proof would not be possible (it would be unlikely to find a Christian who would think Christianity could be shown false on that point).

However, you seem to be asking about the possibility of science demonstrating a naturalistic origin, which raises a question we discuss in my Philosophy of Science course. Any scientific proof would require proper experimentation (I assume that as a necessary condition). Any proper experiment is (again by definition and necessity) an intelligently designed thing. Therefore, no possible experiment could prove that intelligence was not involved. That would leave, at most, the claim that it is possible that such conditions (intelligently designed for the experiment) could have arisen by chance or physical law and do not require intelligence (the experiment would then show intelligence as a sufficient condition but not a necessary one for the result). Normally, believers and non-believers at this point would argue about probability or likelihood of both positions.

I asked my questions because I wasn't sure what you were asking for and I wanted to lay out some possibilities.

David

[kleary]

You have your answer

[VociMike]

Frankly, I'm more interested in stepping back from this question. If one argues that particles could come together "naturally" to form atoms, and that atoms could come together "naturally" to form molecules, and that molecules could come together "naturally" to form living organisms, and these organisms could "naturally" evolve into all the life this planet has ever seen, I think that answer doesn't answer the really important question.

What I want to know is, where did "naturally" come from in the first place? Where did those particles come from? Where did the forces and interactions between particles come from? Where did the mass and energy of the universe come from?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Well, what do you people think about the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life and the alledged involvement of the Judeo-Christian deity. Any arguments does one have to offer against a naturalistic origin of life. I am simply curious about your knowledge regarding this complex topic.

My view is quite complicated, but I will say that we have no answer to this problem, and I think that scientific investigation is eventually yield an answer. Does anyone want to argue against this.

Hi, I don't think that showing that there is a naturalististic possibility for the origin of life can have any effect on the answer to the question of the whether the "God who created nature" planned it that way. For example: Suppose some said to you "watch this" and proceeded to throw a bunch of marbles into the air, and after bouncing and rolling around they rolled into a continuous curve position that spelled out your first name. Now you would not be wrong to suspect that some trickery was involved and that the nature of the marbles or floor had something in them that was preordained to produce this result. No amount of argumentation that no law of physics was violated (which is true because that is certainly one of many possible rest configurations for the marbles) and that it was just a lucky break could "prove" to you that your faith in some other force or intelligence was behind this result. was wrong.

Likewise, arguing that the creation is such that there is a likelihood that its elements would arrainge themselves into living configurations, can never dispel the idea that the creator of the elements, and the laws of probability, intended it to do just that.

Spontaneous generation was once widely accepted as the origen of living things. It was the experimentation of modern science that showed that none of the natural conditions thought to be capable of generating life could really do so. It is obviously a very low probability sequence of events that could do so and it is surprising to me how easily modern man accepts this theory again with absolutely no evidence except the speculation of some scientists.

[Ridgerunner]

I think scientists generally agree that there are things about the natural world that we not only will not know, but that we cannot know. Examples sometimes cited are the nature of the universe before the Big Bang (if, indeed, there was one). It's unknowable because a force of that nature would have altered everything beyond any possibility of reconstruction, physical or theoretical. Another, of course, is what precisely goes on inside a Black Hole. Nothing can enter without being torn apart and utterly altered. Nothing can escape (though I guess Hawking thinks some particles escape) Absolutely nothing can go in or be sent in to observe.

So, if there are barriers in the natural world, beyond which we cannot have knowledge, no matter what, one cannot say that a purely natural explanation for the universe is ever possible.

I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. But something that has bothered me about the quest for natural explanations is the limitation that many wish to put on the term "natural". By "natural", they actually mean "observable and comprehensible to me". Most scientists who concern themselves with such things readily conclude that there may be (some say must be) in the universe creatures that are as greatly more advanced relative to me as I am to, say, a sea slug. If that's true, then it is absolutely arbitrary to say that the superiority of such a creature or being can go so far and no farther, because I cannot define "farther". If I impose, as a limitation on such a being, that it must be comprehensible to me (unlike the sea slug which cannot possibly comprehend me, but perhaps only ignore me) then I have decided to be arbitrary, not logical. I am simply refusing to allow of the (seemingly quite likely) possibility that any creature could be as much more advanced than me than I am than a sea slug. Since both sea slugs and I obviously exist, then it is illogical and irrational to believe that distance cannot be applied above me, since it manifestly applies below me.

Now if I allow of the possibility that some being out in the universe somewhere could be as more advanced than me than I am than a sea slug, I have a problem in explaining it "naturally" in the same way that a sea slug cannot explain me "naturally". Actually, the only thing I could know about that being is what it elected to communicate to me in a way I could comprehend, much as I could "communicate" with a sea slug only by, say, touching it, but in no other way. It would then be aware of my existence, and it would know something of my touch, but nothing more could be learned by it about me. The sea slug, moreover, cannot search me out. I must go to it if there is to be contact.

If I say the distance between a sea slug and myself is "X", then I cannot deny that a being could be beyond me by X. Nor can I deny that it could be beyond me by X to the tenth power, or the millionth power, or to a power that I cannot comprehend because of my limitations. Nor can I say that such a being is "natural" or "unnatural", because I cannot perceive as "natural" anything that is beyond my power to perceive or comprehend. "Natural" is a construct of my mind only, coextensive with my power to comprehend. So, if there is a being so vastly beyond me that I cannot comprehend that vastness or know its limitations or even know that it has limitations, I cannot say that that being is not "natural", viewed from its perspective, however "non-natural" it may seem to me.

What's intriguing is that we have some kind of perception of a being so far beyond us that we can't really comprehend it. We can only apprehend it in a limited fashion. People believe in a being they call God. Why? We have either fabricated it, or it has communicated something of its existence to us. It is unlikely we have fabricated it because we admit right off that it is beyond our power to comprehend or to even imagine. The sea slug can't "dream me up" in the least way, because it has no means of doing so. Yet it is "natural" from the sea slug's perspective, to perceive me if I touch it. Is it "natural" then, for us to perceive a being which we call God, but in a limited way? It is, but only if the being impels us to do so.

If, indeed, there is a creature so far beyond us, and if it is benignly inclined toward us, it would be "natural" for it to attempt to assure us of its benignity and intentions toward us, but in a way we could get into our minds. Some would call that Revelation. So the question whether or not there is a "natural" explanation for the universe is irrelevant to the question whether or not there is a God; "natural" being, as I said, a totally arbitrary concept.

[Nullasalus]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Well, what do you people think about the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life and the alledged involvement of the Judeo-Christian deity. Any arguments does one have to offer against a naturalistic origin of life. I am simply curious about your knowledge regarding this complex topic.

My view is quite complicated, but I will say that we have no answer to this problem, and I think that scientific investigation is eventually yield an answer. Does anyone want to argue against this.

It depends on what you mean by.. everything.

Involvement? To what degree? I personally don't believe God arrived on earth billions of years ago, set up a laboratory, and started to design first-life by hand. I've never met anyone who does, come to think of it.

Naturalistic? Again, I don't believe that that a 'God-orchestrated' origin of life would necessarily violate the laws of nature, so in that sense naturalistic is fine. I simply assume the universe as a whole operates on parameters God has set up. There was a time when it was common to believe (even among atheists) in abiogenesis (flies from meat, etc) - they just assumed it was a natural operation of the universe.

Anything that 'really happened' is naturalistic, even if God was involved. Otherwise things like superposition and wave collapse would be considered magic.

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by VociMike

Frankly, I'm more interested in stepping back from this question. If one argues that particles could come together "naturally" to form atoms, and that atoms could come together "naturally" to form molecules, and that molecules could come together "naturally" to form living organisms, and these organisms could "naturally" evolve into all the life this planet has ever seen, I think that answer doesn't answer the really important question.

What I want to know is, where did "naturally" come from in the first place? Where did those particles come from? Where did the forces and interactions between particles come from? Where did the mass and energy of the universe come from?

Well, quantum chromodynamics states that quarks could be joined via the strong force (which is mediated by gluons). Protons and neutrons are triads of quarks (a neutron being down, down, up, and a proton up, up, down). This step happened in the early universe and accounts for the fact that it is difficult to isolate free quarks because of quark confinement. This process is called hadronization.

Next, at high enough temperatures, protons and neutrons combine into nuclei. For example the big bang nucleosynthesis yielded deuterium, helium, and trace amounts of lithium and berryllium, but unfortuantely, having a small periodic table consisting of isotopes of hydrogen, helium, lithum, and berrylium will not suffice for life. Thus matter condenses into galaxies and stars where stellar nucleosynthesis takes places, and is somewhat similar to the big bang nucleosynthesis. This process is able to yield elements up to iron, but we still have a small periodic table. Well, core collapse of supernova occurs when all their fuel is burned into iron as there is no heat to prevent the supernova for collapsing on itself. This process produces elements with high atomic numbers up to (Californium), but the elements with the highest atomic weight and reasonably long half-life (in the range of billions of years) is uranium.

This allows planets like the Earth to form. Eventually, in some solar systems, accidents arise; we will call them "life". This has the unique ability of creating islands of order in a universe plummeting towards maximum entropy. But unfortunately, Darwinian evolution is ultimately a feeble force in the long run. Eventually, stars would burn all their fuel to iron and star formation will cease. Further down the line, most of the matter will gravitate into black holes. It is proposed that the universe will eventually be composed of photons via proton decay and the evaporation of black holes, but these hypotheses have not been confirmed.

Long story short, the universe is approaching a state of maximium entropy. To me, the universe is ultimately pointless.

Anyone want to argue against this conclusion.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Long story short, the universe is approaching a state of maximium entropy. To me, the universe is ultimately pointless.

Anyone want to argue against this conclusion.

Not sure what the conclusion is, except perhaps your belief that the universe is pointless. That's a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one. If there is no God, then the universe would be pointless even if it didn't reach maximum entropy.

All this scientific postulation, though utterly incapable of verification, is interesting, and might make a good read sometime, so I might look it up. But all this reminds me of nothing so much as the last lines in that old poem about the "Three Blind Men of Hindustan"

"...and prate about an elephant not one of them has seen."

[ribozyme]

I should also add that I will renounce this claim: "Eventually, in some solar systems accidents arise, we will call them "life"."

I wasn't thinking when I wrote that, actually I think life is quite rare in our Hubble volume. Maybe we are the only life forms.

Well, the universe might end here, but eternal inflation will spawn new universes (most of them unable to support life like our universe).

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Well, quantum chromodynamics states that quarks could be joined via the strong force (which is mediated by gluons). Protons and neutrons are triads of quarks (a neutron being down, down, up, and a proton up, up, down). This step happened in the early universe and accounts for the fact that it is difficult to isolate free quarks because of quark confinement. This process is called hadronization.
....

But you didn't tell me why these particles exist, and why they interact in such fashions. You have described more about the matter and energies and laws that might lead to life arising "naturally", but without telling me where this matter and energies and laws come from you have said nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

[I Leatherman]

There was an interesting sounding experiment a few years back. Someone grew stuff in a test tube from a molecular soup. Sadly, I don't remember the details, but it produced a paradox a bit like this. There are two vital components to a self-replicating single cell, apparently. The central bit which holds all the cellular information and is responsable for reproducing the cell and maintaining the cell, and the outer protective bit which covers it. The former needs a specific chemical environment in order to form in the lab - and that same chemical environment which forms it also dissolves it.
But then, the outer protective bit, which is vital to protect this information 'centre' from dissolving, needs a totally different chemical environment in which to form - and that chemical environment in turn would not allow the information 'centre' bit to form in the first place.
At least, that is how I recall the problem with spontaneously generated life.

[steveandersen]

I think your confusing the Miller-Urey experiment and the "proteins need DNA but DNA needs proteins" paradox

It really isn't a paradox
link

As for Abiogenesis from a Christian point of view?

Well, we've gotten robust naturalistic explanations for some fairly simple bio-chemicals. And while we may never know the exact sequence of events we can probably get a very good idea.

I see no conflict with saying that this happened according to God's design...I can't prove it but that is why it is called faith.

I’m not sure why folks see a conflict between the two?

[I Leatherman]

Miller-Urey experiment was the one I think, or some later derivative of it.
I should have said that it was a lab experiment i.e. they knew what they needed in advance to make amino acids in the lab, but the possibility of those exact conditions being possible on earth was open to question.
And even if those conditions did exist on earth the amino acids that were made would dissolve and be destroyed straight away by the same chemical environment that they were produced in. Unless the amino acids were imediately protected by a cell wall made of lipids? or something - which could not be produced in the lab under the same chemical conditions as the amino acids needed. I see no conflict either - but thats probably not saying much.

[steveandersen]

If they were all destroyed right away then how did they know they made them in the first place?

Obviously they weren't all destroyed.

Chemistry isn't a one-way street. Things will exist in equilibrium dependant upon the environment.