.

Dear Not_Now.Soon ,

.

You wrote :

« If scientists create life from no living matter, that would give the idea more credit that it could happen out of chance. Possibly if the conditions were right, then life would have just happened and chance would be a smaller variable. However until such a finding is made, I have to go with what I see »
.

Naturally, I share your scepticism of Democritus’ hypothesis of the genesis of life. Until such time as scientists succeed in replicating the posited natural process of the creation of life from non-living matter, I too consider that we should reserve our judgment.

However, it seems somewhat paradoxical that, at the same time, you declare :

« As for the God hypothesis. I'm not worried, because He isn't a hypothesis »

I interpret this to mean that you consider that God’s existence is an established fact. If so, you are obviously applying double standards, NNS : a sceptical attitude towards scientific hypotheses and a credulous attitude towards religious dogma.

From my point of view, that is an inconsistent worldview to say the least. I instinctively apply a cautiously empirical attitude to all postulated theories of whatever nature and do my best to avoid succumbing to any so-called “confirmation bias”.

But please forgive me if I misjudge you, NNS. Perhaps, like Hans Vaihinger, you are simply proceeding “as if” what is theoretically known to be false is true.

Whatever the case, there is very little chance that you or I will ever know how life came about. It is estimated that it took about three hundred million years to develop on earth. Even if our most brilliant scientists take only a tenth of that time, they still have a long way to go.

In the meantime, you can dream on, NNS ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq4KA0mUnC8

.

To Thinkabit.

Although that is a very interesting point. That we have crossed the threshold of being able to clone, and to influence DNA before or even after a creature is born. However, I don't think it counts very far if we have to use an integral part of the reproductive system in order to clone as a statement that we've created life out of nonliving material. Even considering DNA manipulation, I don't see that as an element that just occurs and then creates the cell around it. As best as I can tell DNA is a fragile piece of our build that it needs to be in a cell to survive and to do the job of being read by RNA which is then used to make the molecules that are the building blocks of a cell.

This is a version of which came first the chicken or the egg. Did the cell come first which could house and protect the DNA that is the blueprint of the cell? Or did the DNA come first unprotected and just happen to survive the hostile conditions of the earth long enough to create the components in the cell to protect it.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that both came at the same time. Anything less then this and either the DNA is lost and destroyed, or the cell doesn't grow and doesn't reproduce.

If scientists can clone or can create life in environments that aren't a sterile lab away from outside influence, then life might have been able to begin on it's own through chance if the conditions are right. That kind of environmental beginning might have to be studied in space though. A vacuumed environment might be the closest lab like setting outside of a lab that is not influenced by the chaotic beginnings of the earth.

To Banjo Paterson.

When you are confronted by two things. One that is theoretical (you haven't seen it yet but you've been taught about it), while the other is something you've seen, or something you've witnessed. That isn't paradoxical to count the one you've seen as reliable, but the other one as unconfirmed is it?

I get the worry about confirmation bias, but at some point you have to follow the evidence and the clues where they lead. If there is a bias to following that evidence trail, so be it. It is better to follow where the evidence goes, then to not seek the truth in order to not be biased.

I hope you understand. Here's another example though just to clarify it all. A child when they learn about love, it starts probably with the example of their parents. That is what they've seen and what they know is reliable. Though there are undoubtedly other theories of how love works and how relationships should be, those are unconfirmed until they are tested to see if they are just as reliable as the person's parents (who may have a positive relationship, or a negative relationship).

I'm not saying that scientific theories are all without merit, or that I hold reservations out for them while accepting religious doctrine in my religious upbringing that is also untested. What I'm saying is that the existence of God has been confirmed several times in my life. Most of them through the interaction of prayer. He's not a theory or a hypothesis.

//What I'm saying is that the existence of God has been confirmed several times in my life. Most of them through the interaction of prayer.//

OK, I've prayed to Thor - since he's the God of atmospheric precipitation when he's not appearing in Marvel movies - for a bit of rain for the parts of Australia that remain drought affected. If they get some rain at some point in the future, I can take that as more confirmatory evidence for the existence of Thor, right?

Not_Now.Soon: You've just moved the goal posts. You originally said that it would be sufficient for you to consider the possibility of a chance creation of life if non-living things could be brought together to form life. So I detailed that this has already been done. To repeat: if the case of the frog experiment in the 1950's a non-living cell nucleus was combined with a non-living eukaryotic cell that has had its nucleus removed. (The nucleus of an eukaryotic cell is a membrane bound organelle which contains its DNA along with other stuff. The other stuff helps physically arrange the large scale shape of the DNA and also helps with the reading of the DNA). And more recently in the last ten years a completely man-made novel chromosome (ie: a long strand of DNA) of a new synthetic species was combined with a bacterial cell with its DNA removed. (A bacterium dosen't have its DNA compartmentalised and stored in a nucleus but rather it just sort of floats around in the cell- this is actually one the of defining differences between a prokaryote and a eukaryote)

Now you can't argue that two separate things have been added together. Also you can't sensibly argue whether the result was a living thing since the resulting cells went on to reproduce (and in the case of the frog experiment it developed into a new tadpole). Both these two claims have been demonstrated/observed.

What you may argue is whether a cell without its DNA is alive or not (for example a mature red blood cell has lost/removed its nucleus along with other stuff so is it alive?). However, once the DNA material is removed most of the internal functioning of a cell comes to an abrupt halt so according to many definitions of life it wouldn't be considered a living thing. Eg: it certainly can't reproduce.

-continued below ---

-- from above --

So therefore, if you except that a cell without its DNA is non-living then we have conclusively demostrated that we can create life from non-living components.

But now you've arbitrarily and restrospectively changed your position so that now it is a requirement that for anything to be considered a life form it must be made from non-biological derived components and not in a lab. Well, you are allowed you to have your own peculiar definition of life but most scientists (and even people in general) would find that a rather restrictive definition. It seems that you have deliberately restricted the definition so that no-matter what humans are able to do, they will never have created life. In other words, your previous reply to me indicates that you have already biased yourself so much that you will never allow the possibility that life maybe something which can be created by a human.