Do Ingredients Suggest Emergence of Life?

Scientist and science publications have been pushing the idea if there is water, life is certain to have emerged from it. This reminds me of this idea, for many years it was believed that maggots were created with spoiled food until it was also disproved many years later by Louis Pasteur.

Take a look at some of these articles that are based on what I call,“ingredients approach”science daily reports…

“This discovery suggests that this region of our solar system contains more water ice than anticipated,” said University of Central Florida Professor Humberto Campins. “And it supports the theory that asteroids may have hit Earth and brought our planet its water and the building blocks for life to form and evolve here.”

In space.com has another study with the ingredients approach, “We can do this entirely in an atmosphere,” researcher Sarah Horst, a University of Arizona graduate student, said in a statement. “We don’t need liquid water, we don’t need a surface. We show that it is possible to make very complex molecules in the outer parts of an atmosphere.”

Sarah didn’t show any evidence for her claims that complex molecules come from the atmosphere, what she did was focus in on the ingredients and made the assumption those ingredients would emerge into life. She also claims that Titan’s atmosphere is a reservoir of prebiotic molecules that could serve as the springboard to life.

New Scientist has a version of the ingredient approach, “To find evidence for life we would need to measure the light spectrum of the planet’s atmosphere and look for the signature of water vapour, as well as possible by-products of life, such as oxygen and methane.”

And lastly, science daily and I believe someone linked this page in the comments, “By reconstructing an ancient protein and tracing how it subtly changed over vast periods of time to produce scores of modern-day descendants, scientists have shown how evolution tinkers with early forms and leaves the impression that complexity evolved many times.”

Creationists know the basic principle of evolution, a step by step, extremely slow process, so with that in mind, how a complex enzyme “emerged” so far back? The worst part of all these article is that they don’t have experimental evidence for their claims. For example, life has never been produced in a lab for any ingredients. So all their talk about all these ingredients supposedly able to emerge is unfounded. The Miller–Urey experiment didn’t produce life, in fact it has a “trap” in it. Why? Because if the things that were created in the lab would go through the process again, they would be destroyed. In nature, there are no such traps!

So why do some scientists just throw out these claims without not even having one “natural” example to go by? If they really know how life supposedly emerged through the ingredients don’t you think they could have reproduced it in a lab? They are really at the spoiled food assumption which life would supposedly emerge from that. No progress in other words! The foundation of the ingredient story holds no merit, no theory, but just a host of far out ideas about a fictional framework.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Do Ingredients Suggest Emergence of Life?

  1. Michael,

    Scientist and science publications have been pushing the idea if there is water, life is certain to have emerged from it.

    This is a really sloppy way to say it. No one says life emerges from water and only water. True, water is esential for life, but it is not the only necessity. Certain amino acids and fatty acids are also necessary for life. Water alone is not enough, and no one ever said that it was.

    This reminds me of this idea, for many years it was believed that maggots were created with spoiled food until it was also disproved many years later by Louis Pasteur.

    What Louis Pasteur disproved was “spontanous generation,” which nobody believed in. The “origin of life” is not believed to be spontaneous. No one thinks that life just appeared out of nothing.

    Sarah didn’t show any evidence for her claims that complex molecules come from the atmosphere, what she did was focus in on the ingredients and made the assumption those ingredients would emerge into life. She also claims that Titan’s atmosphere is a reservoir of prebiotic molecules that could serve as the springboard to life.

    Uhhh, you quoted her in a Space.com article…not a science paper. Didn’t it occure to you that you are not getting lots of details because they are saving that for the actual sientific literature?

    Creationists know the basic principle of evolution, a step by step, extremely slow process, so with that in mind, how a complex enzyme “emerged” so far back?

    Uhh, Michael… This is such a strawman way to ask the question. Why should we believe that the first enzyme was as complex as the ones we have today? Evolutionary theory predicts they likely wouldn’t have started out that way…so your question is moot, besides being an argument from ignorance.

    The Miller–Urey experiment didn’t produce life, in fact it has a “trap” in it.

    Nor was it supposed to. It was simply to see if materials necessary for life would emerge naturally under certain conditions. In fact, when I took biology, my biology teacher even said point blank “Miller and Urey were not trying to create life.”

    Because if the things that were created in the lab would go through the process again, they would be destroyed. In nature, there are no such traps!

    Again, you are showing you, like all other creationists, have missed the point of the Miller-Urey experiment. — The experiment was to re-construct how conditions were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. THAT’S why there was that controled enviorment, or “trap” as you call it. — Though the enviorment he had turned out to be wrong, other experiments (with more accurate versions of who the enviorment was like back then) have produced similar results to Miller-Urey, and therefore the experiment is still valid.

    As a final word: Whether you are Religious or not, believe in God or not, and whether God exists or not, Abiogenesis is a fact. It simply means that once life did not exist, and then it existed at some point… Even Creationism is a “theory of Abiogenesis.”

  2. This reminds me of this idea, for many years it was believed that maggots were created with spoiled food until it was also disproved many years later by Louis Pasteur.

    Michael should not revel too much on Pasteur’s[1] disproof. For many centuries, the theory of spontaneous generation of life was cited as primary evidence for creationism.

    Oh well. We become accustomed to Michael destroying his own case through his ignorance of the subject matter.

    Just one more instance where, if Michael would back up his own challenge and tell us his qualifications to expound upon any field of science, we might know whether he is blatantly ignorant or deliberately lying to us.

    =============

    [1] Pasteur may have been the one who finally buried the carcass of spontaneous generation. However, Francesco Redi challenged the notion in the 1660s, and experiments were performed by many other, whom Michael can no doubt name: John Needham (1745), Lazzqaro Spallanzani (1768), Charles Cagniard de la Tour (1837), and Theodor Schwann (1837).

  3. So why do some scientists just throw out these claims without not even having one “natural” example to go by? If they really know how life supposedly emerged through the ingredients don’t you think they could have reproduced it in a lab? They are really at the spoiled food assumption which life would supposedly emerge from that. No progress in other words! The foundation of the ingredient story holds no merit, no theory, but just a host of far out ideas about a fictional framework.

    What you describe here is creationism, not evolution. Let’s see…

    > No evidence of an example to go by.
    > No reproduction in a lab
    > The spoiled-food theory was a creationist theory
    > No progress in decades of arm-waving
    > Just far-out ideas about a fictional framework.

  4. Michael asserts that Sarah Horst “didn’t show any evidence for her claims that complex molecules come from the atmosphere.” Well, no, not exactly. What she did was use spectrographic analysis of the atmosphere to duplicate it in the lab, and found that complex molecules were generated.

    If Michael would actually read the space.com article that he cites—

    In the lab, researchers simulated possible chemical reactions occurring high up in the nitrogen-rich atmosphere of Titan. They found that various complex molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotide bases, could form without much prodding.

    “We can do this entirely in an atmosphere,” researcher Sarah Horst, a University of Arizona graduate student, said in a statement. “We don’t need liquid water, we don’t need a surface. We show that it is possible to make very complex molecules in the outer parts of an atmosphere.”

    The molecules synthesized in the experiment include the five nucleotide bases found in the genetic code of life on Earth — cytosine, adenine, thymine, guanine and uracil — and the two smallest amino acids, glycine and alanine, researchers said. [Emphasis supplied for the dull-witted]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s