A Closer Look at Chemical Evolution (The Origin of Life)

Follow RTB_Official for updates!

[holz_name]

2. No experiment can prove a hypothesis. Science is working in disproving hypothesis. And the Miller-Urey experiment shows that under the conditions of the experiment amino acids can be formed. If the Miller-Urey experiment is not relevant (which I agree), why do you bring it up?
3. Science can establish chemical evolution, by observation. No life, then life. See point number 1.
4. God created life is not a scientific reasonable statement, because it is not falsifiable. The premordial soup was a scientific reasonable hypothesis, precisely because it was disproved. "God created life" is no different from "Magic pixies created life" or "Aliens created life".
5. Scientists can't demonstrate X therefore God, is a classical "God of the gaps" argument.

[Nivexity]

Chemical Evolution can take place in a large number of different places on Earth, to assume the atmosphere was a requirement for Chemical Evolution is wrong and a fallacy too. For many it's also likely underwater pockets above molten hot spots which creates an upward flow allows for a selection process. This system would mimic a place where complex chemical reactions and formations can take place.

[SuperKako]

You were doing pretty well until the "If a Christian takes the view that God is responsible for creating the very first life forms, that is a scientifically reasonable statement..." Hahahahaha. Hilarious. So, when there is no scientific certainty I can just take whatever crazy theory I happen to like (fairies and gnomes included) and it will be "scientifically sound"? HAHAHAHAHA. Hahahahaha. Your logic is just... not very logical.

[siriusblack]

i'll give you that the miller-urey experiment is not representative of the early earth conditions, which is why the leading abiogenesis theories today suggest that it's more likely that life formed near hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean instead

in fact this theory also rejects the "primordial soup" hypothesis which argued that part of abiogenesis was UV radiation from the sun being responsible for the formation of some organic molecules, instead suggesting that life formed in rather enclosed environments, powered by geothermal energy and catalysed by nearby rocks. (also it took about a billion years for the first actively self-replicating cell to evolve from these conditions)

experiments have shown that these conditions not only produce a greater variety of amino acids than the urey-miller experiment, including about half of the amino acids that are used in protein synthesis today, but also that certain types of clay can help catalyze the formation of RNA chains and fatty acids under a specific range of temperatures.

furthermore as "reproduction, mutation, selection" are the three criteria for biological evolution, "repeated production, mutation, selection" are the criteria for chemical evolution, with "repeated production" being any natural "cycle", such as tides, or convection currents

Finally the type of energetic conditions found near hydrothermal vents closely mimics the method life uses to this day in order to harness various energy sources (a proton density gradient)

[Jr-qols]

Lord shiva, lord Vishnu, Thor, Zeus and Ra all shook their heads at some of the logical fallacies used here. They were real gods in their day, not mere gods of the gaps.

[SeungCanFade]

What about catalytic activity of certain metals? The study of catalysis is still relatively new, but catalysts can definitely make up the lack of reducing agents eg methane. The Earth is a planetary chemical reactor that had billions of years to react.

[gneissgirl]

So many people commenting here that life did arise from the “primordial soup” or that abiogenesis... “it's based on observation”. So many people here clearly have only a superficial understanding of what abiogenesis entails. Is this what our public school systems have led people to believe?

[emilymorales]

I remember reading the Miller-Urey experiment in my biology text more recently - oddly never read the data that debunked it.

Evolution really is a “blind watchmaker of the gaps, ” explanation for origin of life and biodiversity. I tried my best to embrace it, but the data just doesn’t support it - it demands too many presuppositions.

Thanks. Dr. Rana.

[Naps]

In my opinion, you did a pretty good job at explaining this subject scientifically. What you did was telling the fact that these experiments and theories have been disproved. This is exactly what science does all the time trying to correct its mistakes.
The reason to disprove a theory is usually to find another one that fits with our current experience and "knowledge", and not to try to prove another hypothesis. A scientifical point of view would be: "We now believe that these theories are wrong and should try to find another one that fits with what we know."
We shouldn't believe one thing just because another one has been proven wrong.
Still, I'm not against the idea of a god. What I believe personally, is that what we call god is an oversimplification of something we can't even imagine. Something that didn't generate the Big Bang (since there is no before), but that is the Universe itself simply existing.
I think that in some way what we call god is everything that exists and could exist, every possible combination of variables and constant forming this sort of infinity.

[holz_name]

So, you reason to believe in God is that science can't explain X? What if science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt how life can emerge from non-life, through abiogenesis? What if science can create new life in a lab? Will you stop believing in God? Thousands years ego, people thought that lighting came from Zeus. Please be honest and admit that your reasons for believing in God are not based on reason.

[EmeraldView]

Miller-Uri is your objection? Please. That's been answered long ago. Miller-Uri demonstrates that you can naturally produce organic compounds. We've since demonstrated that there are numerous ways to naturally produce organic compounds, not only on a planet like earth, but EVEN in deep space.

[jameskeelinggaming]

It’s just as reasonable to say that I created life in the past just by wishing it to happen. Unlike your fictional god I can prove I exist and have more power than a none existent god. So it’s reasonable to you to say I created life

[mattc]

we don't know what the early atmosphere was made up of, all we can use as evidence is what gases volcanoes release today which all point towards co2 and co, methane and hydrogen and hydrogen compounds, and nitrogen.

[peters]

Just trying to find out if base sugars would ever occur spontaneously in nature. It is a giant leap from there to ask even if a strand of rna would occur. Just saying, the title has a very broad reach, right? I guess one would have to enter academia to obtain detail on the initial question without slipping down the slope of if it is the origin of life, lol.

[radzewicz]

Actually the Miller experiment has been repeated thousands, yes thousands,  of times, with many different types of gasses, even with gasses such as carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen and contrary to what you have said, it has resulted in organic molecules being generated. Every time a different atmospheric combination has been postulated the experiment gets redone dozens of times and has always produced various organic molecules. You need to do better research. Sorry, you strike out on this one.

[shaccooper]

Science fiction. Science has refuted these claims

[stevenwiederholt]

So the question remains....How Do You Get Life From Non-Life?

[barendscholtus]

All the way at the end we get to hear that it is SCIENTIFICALLY reasonable to say that God created life... so... where is the experiment?

[unfixablegop]

From "we still have no real idea of the steps" to taking creationism as a valid theory is pretty lame. How can a miracle outside of physical laws be considered scientific?

[THUTH-ixtt]

It is Science that God did it because scientists can't explain abiogenesis ?!? That is some strange Logic and really stupid.