Can Science Explain the Origin of life?

[jonperry]

At 'Stated Clearly' we've been working along side NASA chemists to create a video on the origin of life. This is the first video in a 2 part series on life origin's chemistry (second video isn't even outlined yet). I'm curious how it will be received with Creationist leaning crowds like the one here. I know you all hold very diverse opinions on the subject and I always enjoy the discussions we have. I've posted the video on my site along with a survey. I'd love your feedback in the survey and I'd like to see some discussion here at the Narrow Path.

Here's a link to the video and survey: http://www.statedclearly.com/life-origins-video-survey/

I look forward to your feedback.

Thanks
Jon

[Paidion]

I watched your video, Jon. It's a far cry from explaining the origin of life.

1. How did the original chemicals come into existence?

2. You say that it has been observed that chemicals seem to arrange themselves or organize themselves in the presence of an energy source, and from there you speculate that this explains the transition from chemicals to life in the distant past.

But if this were the case, it should be possible to produce something living from chemical reactions in a lab. Yes, amino acids have been produced but no living thing, not even a single-celled form of life—and there have been many attempts. Success would be a major pillar to support evolutionary theory.
I predict that it will never happen. I say it takes more than chemical reactions to produce life.

[jonperry]

I watched your video, Jon. It's a far cry from explaining the origin of life.

I hope the animation made it clear that what we have so far is not a full explanation for the origin of life, simply an idea which is consistently leading to new discoveries.

1. How did the original chemicals come into existence?

Are you asking how atoms came into existence or the molecules of life? If you are curious about the origin of atoms, there are some books by Steven Hawking which outline the leading ideas on that. If you are curious about molecule formation, I suggest reading David Deamer. David is one of the consultants at the Center for Chemical Evolution which funded my animation. He's very humble, explains things for everyone to understand, and clearly states what we do and do not yet know. I recommend this book of his: http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/141234124484?lpid=82

2. You say that it has been observed that chemicals seem to arrange themselves or organize themselves in the presence of an energy source, and from there you speculate that this explains the transition from chemicals to life in the distant past.

We speculate the transition from chemicals to life for many reasons, one being what you wrote above, another is that all of the activities of living cells can be understood through normal chemical reactions. It appears that a cell can be accurately thought of as a self-perpetuating chemical system. So far, the research strongly suggests that all of a living cell's parts and activities can be studied and understood through the laws of physics and chemistry which are already known.

But if this were the case, it should be possible to produce something living from chemical reactions in a lab. Yes, amino acids have been produced but no living thing, not even a single-celled form of life—and there have been many attempts.

You are correct in that we have not created a living thing from scratch yet, but David Deamer's group is getting dangerously close. They have protocells which self-assemble, polymerize DNA, and even perform rudimentary growth and reproduction when conditions are right. All this is done under what are arguably legitimate pre-biotic conditions (early Earth conditions).

If you have an hour and 3 minutes, this talk by David Deamer is a good one to watch on his protocells. You'll see he is very clear on what they have and have not yet achieved. http://youtu.be/_SHHfnIHXQI

For a basic overview of protocell membrane formation, you can watch the series of short animations here: http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html

Success [in creating a living cell from scratch under prebiotic conditions] would be a major pillar to support evolutionary theory.

It would be a major pillar in explaining how life first got started but it would neither support nor take away from Darwin's theory of biological evolution. The theory of biological evolution explains how life diversified after it got started. I think it's important to make that distinction because many creationists believe in evolution to some degree, some believing it happens only within "kinds", others believing that God made the first cells and then evolution took over from there as seen in the fossil record.

[TheEditor]

Maybe someong can help me out. I can't understand how I am supposed to understand the origins of life outside of some kind of intelligence, when the model we are using is intelligence in a laboratory creating it?? Am I just thick-skulled or is this a glaring contradiction?

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

I'm not sure than Jon is insisting that no intelligence was involved (are you, Jon?). Jon keeps emphasizing that evolution does not rule out God—that is, that it is not the same as atheism. However, if there is to be room for God in our thinking at all, then at what point does He begin to be relevant? I should think it would be in the creation, not only of life but of the chemicals which He used to bring life into existence.

If God is not involved at this early point, then what function does He have in the universe? If He didn't create it then either He doesn't exist, or else He was created by some force or mind existing earlier than Himself.

I can see the possibility of God directing what appear to us to be natural processes in the development of life—though it is not my opinion that this is what He did.

I will say, though, that I like the artwork and the subtle humor in the videos. I think they are very winsome, though they present views contrary to my own.

[jonperry]

If God is not involved at this early point, then what function does He have in the universe?

Steve, you make a good point. To many people it seems that if God was not hands-on in the creation of life then there is no God. This is certainly an argument used by the Atheist movement. That said, what exactly does it mean to believe in the creator as described in the Bible? Do we need to believe that God was hands-on in the same way we are hands-on when building a table out of wood? Or is there another type of creation we could be thinking about without betraying the Bible? For example, is it acceptable to speculate that God creates and sustains nature itself; therefore, all natural events are the will and action of God?

I am not a theist but it seems to me that having a natural explanation for things does not necessarily mean we must put spiritual explanations aside. I imagine most Christians would thank God for the rain which ends a drought, even though many accept the idea that the weather is controlled by natural cause and effect.

Maybe someone can help me out. I can't understand how I am supposed to understand the origins of life outside of some kind of intelligence, when the model we are using is intelligence in a laboratory creating it?? Am I just thick-skulled or is this a glaring contradiction?

In these experiments, the scientists use their intelligence to set up environments designed to simulate prebiotic (ancient earth) conditions. Then they simply watch what happens. It's like a fish biologist who sets up an aquarium and then studies the behavior of her fish.

By studying old rocks and other objects and planets in our solar system, we have sketched out several ideas of what the ancient Earth may have been like. In the lab, we try to simulate those conditions and watch what happens.

There are problems with this of course, we know that many species of fish for example, don't show off all their natural behaviors in captivity because conditions are not perfectly matched to their natural environment. We know much more about fish environments then we know about the ancient Earth so you can imagine the difficulties that life origin researchers are facing.

In David Deamer's talk he shows how several Life Origins experiments have been set up. Even if some of the vocab is too technical, you'll get a good idea of what these experiments are like. http://youtu.be/_SHHfnIHXQI

[TheEditor]

Hi Jon,

I think I understand what you are saying, and I think I understood already what you were saying before your re-said it. I guess the question is; in our artificial construct, viewing these experiments you refer to as an analogy, who exactly do the scientists arranging things in the experiment identify with? Randomness? Or God?

Regards, Brenden.

[jonperry]

who exactly do the scientists arranging things in the experiment identify with? Randomness? Or God?

When I visited NASA's center in Georgia I met all kinds of people. There were atheists as you'd expect but also many evangelicals (it's in the Bible belt after all) some Catholics, and one Hindu who is very serious about his religion. All of them subscribe to methodological naturalism when doing science. In other words, they assume there is a natural cause for any phenomenon they might be studying. Scientists of all religious backgrounds do this when putting on their science hat. They do it because this is what works. It is what consistently leads to new discoveries.

[TheEditor]

Thanks Jon.

I think my query may have been misunderstood. I can see in re-reading it that it could be taken two ways. I wasn't asking who the scientists identify with personally, I was more referring to the experiment itself as a "microcosm"-like analogy (if you will). In this analogy, the scenario arranged by the scientists represent the "conditions" under which life could occur. Who then are represented by the scientists themselves? This is the cunundrum I come up against in all of these "controlled" experiments. In each case, we have intelligent minds (the scientific observers) arranging the dynamic. If, though, there is no Creator, who then controlled the original dynamic?

Regards, Brenden.

[PR]

Jon, I'm not sure if there's really any point in this whole discussion.

"In other words, they assume there is a natural cause for any phenomenon they might be studying"

The powers that be in the world of "science" have decreed that a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe is not allowed as an option. So the whole game is rigged from the start. The bias is baked in. It tilts the whole thing towards atheistic/secular humanist conclusions.

This is so even when some of the more level headed have pointed out that the idea of the universe beginning by pure random chance is statistically impossible. Isn't that scientific proof that the naturalistic assumptions for beginnings are wrong? From the molecular to the galactic, the whole universe exhibits a very complex, sophisticated level of order, purpose, and design. Wouldn't you agree?

IMO, there's way too much energy put into the question of how the universe began. At the end of our life, what good will that have served?

The more important questions are why was the universe created? And why were we created? Not how. These are the questions we should make our life's work. And the current definition of naturalistic science gives us no help with these.

Allow the possibility of supernatural origins into the debate and then we'll be able to objectively discuss the origin of life and the universe. Until then it all seems like one hand clapping to me.

Thanks

Phil