Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

The building blocks of life are seeded through space. We don't know if they are everywhere, throughout the entire universe, but our local space carries the organic chemistry to start life.

All 4 base blocks of our DNA have been found in meteorites. Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine; ATCG.
Link

All the amino acids necessary for creation of life, proteins etc have been found in space.
Link

So, when you say space is inorganic... it's not. Space is full of organic chemistry, and most likely life. If meteorites carry the building blocks of life, that means space, or the universe is literally seeding life.

Then it just takes the right temperature, the right circumstances and the right amount of time and new life grows.

a reply to: Mahogany

Do you know what terrestrial contamination is in this context (when analyzing samples from meteorites or sample return space missions)?

For a refresher, see these comments on:

page 8 (and the next one)
page 13 (and this edit, note the articles being used there and compare with your own)

originally posted by: whereislogic

Energy is not nothing, regardless whether it exists inside or outside of our physical universe.

Bold statement...

a reply to: Mahogany

The organic matter on meteorites would have to be whole living cells for it to have any possibility of seeding earth.

Amino acid and nucleic acid monomers can form naturally here on earth, but the difficulty is polymerizing them into chains. The reason this is difficult is because it's thermodynamically unfavorable (meaning it will not happen) in water. It needs biological catalysts in order to polymerize into the correct orientation.

But even if the fully developed catalyst proteins were on the meteorites, it would need a whole host of other proteins to help facilitate the needs of even the most basic cell. For this reason you would need a fully living cell to be able to survive atmospheric entry on a meteorite. Given that our atmosphere is capable of melting solid iron-nickel meteorites I don't think a biological cell would stand a chance

That is why it is extremely unlikely that earth was seeded by an asteroid. Not to mention the cell would die unless earth had particular conditions that would allow it to persist

originally posted by: cooperton

An intelligent Creator creating the intelligible world is much more likely than a lack of involvement of a sentience. "God did it" is a much more likely starting hypothesis than "no higher intelligence was involved"

We have used the term "god did it" for 1000s of years to explain everything we didn't know at that time. Seems we have whittled that down some don't you think?

But if there were no enzymes to polymerize the amino acids then enzymes (amino acid chains) can not form.

That is your assumption pulled off the Watchtower page... It seems you are stuck at enzymes with no desire to look at what was the precursor of them. You also assume life did not evolve and so suggesting that God sparked life with enzymes means little to you as you assume life came prepackaged by God.

Generating amino acids isn't the hard part, it is thermodynamically favorable in relatively stable conditions.

We do not know the makeup of primitive earth outside of there were a lot of chemicals and a lot of chemical energy. At the simplest level, we are talking about chemical reactions and that is basically what life is. You are hung up on polymers with no desire to look past the God thing, so I do not know what to say.

originally posted by: cooperton
Given that our atmosphere is capable of melting solid iron-nickel meteorites I don't think a biological cell would stand a chance

That is why it is extremely unlikely that earth was seeded by an asteroid. Not to mention the cell would die unless earth had particular conditions that would allow it to persist

You are coloured by your belief that Earth has been the same since its birth. Your picture of early Earth is the garden of Eden. It was nothing like that. Early Earth did not have an atmosphere like today (Early to Late Heavy Bombardment eras) so nothing would have burned up in it. Most basic chemical compounds can survive impact.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We have used the term "god did it" for 1000s of years to explain everything we didn't know at that time. Seems we have whittled that down some don't you think?

the precept of Intelligence making intelligence is more logical than unintelligence making intelligence.

"But if there were no enzymes to polymerize the amino acids then enzymes (amino acid chains) can not form."

That is your assumption pulled off the Watchtower page... It seems you are stuck at enzymes with no desire to look at what was the precursor of them. You also assume life did not evolve and so suggesting that God sparked life with enzymes means little to you as you assume life came prepackaged by God.

No I have a degree in Chemistry this is my own research, although I assume many others have came to this same conclusion if they searched without bias. The precursors to enzymes are amino acids bonding together all in the same configuration. It simply cannot happen by random chance, that's why they can't even emulate it in a lab. You need a ribosome for them to bond in the correct orientation. To believe otherwise is mere faith because there's no empirical proof it can happen.

We do not know the makeup of primitive earth outside of there were a lot of chemicals and a lot of chemical energy. At the simplest level, we are talking about chemical reactions and that is basically what life is. You are hung up on polymers with no desire to look past the God thing, so I do not know what to say.

It is not a matter of earth conditions, it is a matter of thermodynamics that doesn't allow peptide bonds to be a spontaneous reaction in water. You would have to make the claim that there were totally different thermodynamic laws in the past. This is a great appeal to faith. The way thermodynamics work will not allow amino acids to spontaneously polymerize in water, especially in the same required L-configuration every time. Thats why enzymatic control of this process is absolutely necessary to produce a coherent protein. Proteins are essentially organic microbots performing very precise functions in the body.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You are coloured by your belief that Earth has been the same since its birth. Your picture of early Earth is the garden of Eden. It was nothing like that. Early Earth did not have an atmosphere like today (Early to Late Heavy Bombardment eras) so nothing would have burned up in it. Most basic chemical compounds can survive impact.

Sure you could believe that. But it only passes the thermodynamic dilemma to another distant planet. That's actually harder than life just forming here, because then it also has to travel here.

The thing is, given the current law of thermodynamics, peptide polymerization in strictly the L-configuration is thermodynamically impossible without a ribosome to facilitate this process. We're talking 10s of thousands of nucleotide and peptide polymerization reactions just to get the most basic ensemble for the most rudimentary cell. Imagine flipping a coin heads 10,000 times in a row, except you don't even have a coin to flip. That analogy is relevant because the lack of coin to flip is the inability for peptide polymerization to be thermodynamically favorable in water, and the 10,000 coin flips in a row is them all being in the L-orientation when they could very easily flip tails and have one be in the D-orientation.

This is why if Darwin knew microbiology he never would have postulated his theory.

Yes he would. Darwin, despite wrangling his beliefs and deeply-held faith, used observational evidence to conclude the inevitable truth. He and others, who believed in your god, could not deny the evidence all around them - that all flora and fauna evolve and adapt over time.

Species have become extinct, new species have arisen, others have changed dramatically over time and yet others have remained largely the same. This alone excludes the Genesis account of life of Earth. All Abrahamic religions have this same flaw because they had no idea about evolution, speciation or anything other than what they saw themselves at that time.

I'm busy this weekend and don't have time to read beyond the abstracts, but if anyone has them time I'd be interested in hearing a synopsis:

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(20)30003-3

www.nature.com...

royalsocietypublishing.org...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We have used the term "god did it" for 1000s of years to explain everything we didn't know at that time. Seems we have whittled that down some don't you think?

the precept of Intelligence making intelligence is more logical than unintelligence making intelligence.

Very agreed, check out Robert Lanza's "Biocentrism" books...

In answer to "How did an unconscious world create consciousness?"

It didn't, the "Consciousness" created the unconscious world, look at the most modern quantum physics discoveries and it does begin to make more sense...

originally posted by: cooperton

the precept of Intelligence making intelligence is more logical than unintelligence making intelligence.

Terms like life and intelligence are human constructs we have created within our abstract thoughts to explain something so your point here does not make sense. We invented those ideals and then say they are special so we now need intelligence to make then too, not super logical.

No I have a degree in Chemistry this is my own research, although I assume many others have came to this same conclusion if they searched without bias. The precursors to enzymes are amino acids bonding together all in the same configuration. It simply cannot happen by random chance, that's why they can't even emulate it in a lab. You need a ribosome for them to bond in the correct orientation. To believe otherwise is mere faith because there's no empirical proof it can happen.

It is not a matter of earth conditions, it is a matter of thermodynamics that doesn't allow peptide bonds to be a spontaneous reaction in water. You would have to make the claim that there were totally different thermodynamic laws in the past. This is a great appeal to faith. The way thermodynamics work will not allow amino acids to spontaneously polymerize in water, especially in the same required L-configuration every time. Thats why enzymatic control of this process is absolutely necessary to produce a coherent protein. Proteins are essentially organic microbots performing very precise functions in the body.

That is always your answer in the end... "can not" is where you are stuck and want to stay stuck because to change that would affect your God story. We had prebiotic chemical building blocks and simple proteins called peptides that allow us to look in the direction of before...

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Yes he would. Darwin, despite wrangling his beliefs and deeply-held faith, used observational evidence to conclude the inevitable truth. He and others, who believed in your god, could not deny the evidence all around them - that all flora and fauna evolve and adapt over time.

Species have become extinct, new species have arisen, others have changed dramatically over time and yet others have remained largely the same. This alone excludes the Genesis account of life of Earth. All Abrahamic religions have this same flaw because they had no idea about evolution, speciation or anything other than what they saw themselves at that time.

Darwin didn't try and explain the beginning of life, His work was on the evolution of life. Cooperton is trying to tackle two different events.

His first one is the beginning of life, how could it start and he says only God can start it. It really isn't a big point to me if someone thinks that. We can then just say we agree to disagree and move on.

The other part of Cooperton's God narrative is that life also can not evolve and so it also needs God's hand to make life as we see it today. This part is interesting because he would not need to argue the beginning of life point with enzymes and ribosomes if God just made life as is.

I could say OK let's get past the beginning and talk evolution and holy hell he will throw the " you can't have a 747 without intelligent design" analogy at you.

The one question that is never answered is to ask how and when we humans came to be.

He is a liar. He has no degree in any science

a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: Phantom423

I do, and i'd say co-op has a better understanding than myself.

a reply to: Kreeate

A supreme being is possible. Your biblical, jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, narcissistic, illogical god is not.

Funny your opinion is not just bombastic unpopular mostly isolated and fairly
below the norm. It's also narcissistic to claim you know who God
would as well as wouldn't be. It sounds as if you are deciding if God
is possible, as well as who he is and who he isn;t for everyone. When it seems
you haven't even come to a conclusion for yourself.

I just wanted to point out that you don't get decide that for anyone.

Not even yourself.

a reply to: Saloon

Also, these countries that are chastised for being highly religious, remind me how current trends reflect the benefits of those belief systems? By every metric you can measure, somewhere like the UAE is a far more desirable place to live than somewhere "progressive" like London. I challenge anyone who's been to Dubai to somehow claim it's not a shining example of modern civilization. It's a comparative Utopia when compared to virtually any Western City.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

I do, and i'd say co-op has a better understanding than myself.

a better understanding of what?

a reply to: Phantom423

Evolutionary biology.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Evolutionary biology.

He does not believe in evolutionary biology. He believes in magic wands