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

originally posted by: cooperton

The odds of intelligent life existing due to random chances is astronomically less likely than it existing due to an intelligent creator.

The claim of the philosophical naturalist is that it happened by chance (another way of saying that is "by accident", quoting Dawkins from below), so that's why in the evaluation of this claim the subject of odds comes into play to determin how plausible this scenario is. Since chance is not a causal factor in the argument of induction that the cause was creation, odds really do not come into play in the evaluation of that argument.

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠(1)

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”(2) But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter.

1. The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.
2. Ibid., p. ix.

Other than that it is more based on fiction than science, there are a number of major problems with this storyline. The article I linked on page 5 describes some of them, using the term "pitfalls".

Can Life Arise by Chance?

...

CHEMICAL EVOLUTION, THE LATEST SPECULATION

Many scientists believe that a primitive atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water vapor, carbon dioxide and a few other gases was bombarded by ultraviolet rays, thus breaking the molecules into atoms, which recombined to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These and other organic compounds, we are told, agglomerated in water, acquired a membrane and became a living cell; this derived its energy perhaps first from methane, later from fermentation. Still later, it is said, the cell had to “invent” the process of photosynthesis. But could a simple cell really produce and sustain itself in this way? Why, even the finest scientists will admit humbly that they cannot understand photosynthesis completely, much less duplicate it!

SOME PITFALLS

Many scientists have theorized that the cell evolved spontaneously in this way. But the pitfalls for their theory are many, and very, very deep!

First pitfall: It is a bold assumption that earth’s primitive atmosphere contained the necessary gases in the right proportions to start the chain of reactions. There is no evidence to support this. [whereislogic: there is however evidence from geology that demonstrates the presence of "free oxygen" in the atmosphere in the time period abiogenesis is said to have occurred, which creates another problem for the storyline, I'll get back to that later by quoting another article on that subject.]

Second pitfall: If such an atmosphere did exist, and if the amino acids were produced, they would be destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and ammonia and water vapor. Amino acids are very complex molecules; therefore they are less stable and more easily destroyed​—just as it is easier to topple a stack of 10 bricks than a stack of three. Formed high in the atmosphere, such amino acids could hardly survive to reach water on earth, and, if they did, they would not endure here long enough to become concentrated into the “soup” of the evolutionary theory. The following excerpts from an article by Dr. D. E. Hull in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature confirm this:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”

In an experiment, when scientists subjected a carefully prepared gas mixture to a electrical discharge, a few of the simplest amino acids did accumulate, but only because they were quickly removed from the area. If these amino acids had been left exposed to the discharge, the situation could be compared to what would happen if one man is making bricks and another is hitting them with a hammer as soon as they are formed. It takes several hundred amino acids linked together in correct sequence in a chain to make an average protein, and it takes several hundred different proteins to make the simplest of organisms. So in our analogy of the man making bricks: he must cement together hundreds of bricks in a string, and accumulate hundreds of these strings of hundreds​—and do all of this while the other man is wildly swinging his hammer! This is still grossly oversimplified, for it takes much more than a chain of amino acids to make a living organism.

MORE PITFALLS

...

IMPOSSIBILITIES NO DETERRENT

...

Coming back to the subject of "free oxygen":

...

Classic but Questionable

Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’* How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere? [*: Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed.]

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

Why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.”

Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing. [whereislogic: just like the argument that 'life originated by chance because we are here, or otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.' This way of reasoning is what my first response on page 5 was about. Another version of that way of reasoning is demonstrated in the part of Protein's comment that I quoted and responded to there.]

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

Source: Chapter 3: What Is the Origin of Life?

Continuing with another article about this oxygen problem:

...

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”⁠6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. [whereislogic: for good reason, because of the evidence from geology I alluded to earlier.] The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠7

...

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠9

...

Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

Coming back to the quote from Dr. D. E. Hull in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature quoted under the 2nd pitfall in the article from my previous comment:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”

Saying that these well-established facts are “fatal” to the story of spontaneous generation (a.k.a. the chemical evolution of life), would be the equivalent of acknowledging that these well-established facts provide conclusive evidence that this particular storyline is impossible. That's why this philosophical naturalist won't acknowledge it as such but chooses to use the phrase "if indeed it is not fatal" instead. Zealously following the agnostic code, South Park style. But the reality is that this evidence does conclusively prove it to be impossible (by chance, remember, that is the claim in that story). This is part of the evidence spoken of when the same article says the following a few paragraphs later:

Laws governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous generation of life.

This is how chemistry works, as is well-established by means of observation and experimentation. It does not work as claimed in the storyline, we've already discovered that before Dawkins for example made up his version of events. But these people simply ignore that by using the joker card of agnosticism to deny well-established facts/realities that are problematic for what they've made a career with, i.e. what they have been selling their entire profitable careers. If they did acknowledge these inconvenient facts and what they prove in regards to their storyline(s), they would actually have to find something to contribute to the sciences for a change, and for the first time in their lives. Rather than making up (proven false) stories to tickle the ears of their audience, or market. It would expose the awards-system used in the sciences to be an utter farce, merely a publicity/marketing/propaganda stunt to promote certain players in the field, creating cliques of people who haven't contributed to the sciences by making a single factual discovery, yet still get plenty of awards for selling their unverified philosophies under the marketingbanner "Science". Being materialists (referring to the meaning in Madonna's song about being a material girl, not philosophical naturalism), it's not surprising that they continue doing what is the easiest and most profitable to do...

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

It is of course pretty scary and disconcerting if there's a chance to lose your entire livelihood (also when having all your eggs in that particular basket). So for many they don't even see it as a realistic option to be completely honest/truthful about it.

a reply to: whereislogic


So here lies the problem. To explain it all away with intelligent design is a copout, i.e. easy button. But, lets say intelligent design planted the universe with the building blocks of life and let it run whatever course it does. The big problem is this is a non-falsifiable statement, and so becomes faith based only logic and opens up so many other questions that go down the chicken or egg scenario to the point your head spins.

This is not something I truly wish to debate since it really cannot be, so we can say life needed intelligent design to start and I say OK whatever. Then we get into the mix of the real argument in all life needed to be spontaneously created in its current form. This is where the real topic of a few here really lies and is what they truly believe to have happen.

Your initial assumption that the universe is inorganic is incorrect. Almost everywhere we’ve looked we’ve found organic molecules. Organic life is just a specific arrangement of organic molecules. The fact that we are here, means the universe is alive. We are part of the universe.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm

“According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.”

If instead of looking at current life backwards we need to look from 4 billion years ago forwards and say life will be there in 4 billion years, but we will not dictate to what that life will be. Now the odds are greatly in favor of happening and life will be what life becomes. Humans just happened to be one of those billions of species that have come and gone on our planet and we too one day will go just as all species end up doing unless we can break the cycle and do our own thing outside of evolution.

I see it a bit like those abandoned business plazas where the surrounding biome eventually dominates the remains of so called civilization. The architecture is inorganic but the life adapting to it...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

“According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.”

Don't know who you're quoting but stating a rather obvious myth/false story and falsehood as if it's a fact/reality/truth in one's argument or point doesn't really drive home the point very well. Nor does it help your case for philosophical naturalism and believing in the impossible (including that which has already been conclusively proven to be impossible). See video below, no need to watch beyond 5:16 (and you can skip the first 22 seconds):

Talking about the ingenious design of the bumblebee's flight control:

It's a philosophical observation about how people regularly assert their clever pseudo enlightened expertise where nature has been succeeding without it for millions of years.

Simon Whistler, that's a name I never heard of before today. I've now discovered (and bookmarked) a new Apple podcast series. However I couldn't help noticing there's no mention of "intelligent" or "design" anywhere in the examination of bee flight mechanics.

¯|_(ツ)_/¯

The real problem with intelligent design is that supposed to be permanent in an impermanent or ever changing universe an might as well focus on Immortality. The cycle of life an death would be broken or whole life forms would just die off from stagnation or not being able to adapt when the weather changes. If Man was perfect, they wouldn’t need to cover their shame when it got cold or their ass got burned, an we could wrestle bears.

Mufasa also said, the antelope eat the grass, they eat the antelope, they both poop, an the grass eats the poop. Who needs who here?

a reply to: AlienView

We are in the very infancy of discovering what is actually out there in the universe. We send ships, with cameras out into the deep, dark, murky depths of the universe in hopes of some answers. How can anyone say there is no life, when we really haven’t been all that far from home?

The majority of us on earth have never been in space. So, we have to rely on what “They” say. Recently what “They” have been telling us has not exactly been all that reliable.

So, as a non-science-y earthling, all I can offer you is my opinion, and my opinion says; think outside of the box, way out of the box, in fact throw that darn box away. The universe is teaming with every kind of life that you can think of, and even some that you could never have imagined.

If anything, actually comes of the latest loosing of the bonds on UFO/UAP, then we as a planet could soon be in for one heck of a wild ride.

originally posted by: Proto88
The real problem with intelligent design is that supposed to be permanent in an impermanent or ever changing universe an might as well focus on Immortality. The cycle of life an death would be broken or whole life forms would just die off from stagnation or not being able to adapt when the weather changes. If Man was perfect, they wouldn’t need to cover their shame when it got cold or their ass got burned, an we could wrestle bears.

This is a good objection but the answer is mentioned specifically. We are in a fallen state, and our "sin", or think of it as maligned psychology, is causing the woes of the world. The unfallen state is referred to by many names in various cultures such as Mt Zion, Moksha, Valhalla, and so on. Christ refers to it as the kingdom of Heaven... and it Is within reach during our lifetime.

a reply to: cooperton

Maybe that fallen state fall or separatation from God called Abiogenesis, and that The Kingdom of Heaven or Garden of Eden was the primordial ooze or soup. When everyone or thing was one amalgamated being, an surprisingly got along, then the continuous division lead to individuation, said Free Will, which was the result of Serpent tempting Eve with the Fruit of Knowledge?

Kind of like Evangelion, but won’t get to into it cause of spoilers. Hmm… what is a man if acts like an Ape?

The soup, the intergalactic cauldron, the big bang itself all needed ingredients to form anything. These ingredients had to come from somewhere. Arguing about origins of life as we define it must first begin with the material required to create the possibility of any subsequent chemical or physical action/reaction.

Where did those original elements come from? Whose "ooze" are we contemplating here?

We know that the Stars create all of the elements that exist, and did so from the one simplest atom - hydrogen.

We know that all molecules are created from the chemical processes that results from the atoms from different elements congregating in various environments.

We know that the organic compounds, like amino acids, which are the required precursors for all life we understand, are produced by the same methods.

So, why would anyone ever think that the universe is inorganic? It makes no sense. Organic everything is a byproduct of our very universe, and is most likely the reason universes exist in the first place.

Of course the bigger issue as to the naturalistic story regarding the origin of life is not so much how organic compounds or the building blocks of life emerged by chance, but how these came together to form the first lifeform, or living organism (by chance and the forces of nature as they are, and as they operate according to the laws that govern chemistry and physics; as per the naturalistic storyline).

QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6 [*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.]

Why do these facts matter?
Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing​—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

What do you think? All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.

Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

...

James Tour refers to this subject of "the coordination" (quoting Dr. Carol Cleland from the bolded part above) as the "assembly problem" in the video below. Since it also has "a closer look at the way a cell is made" as well as comparing this with "the theories some scientists propound about where life came from", you can do what's recommended above (the link below leads to a specific subject concerning the RNA World hypothesis and the formation of strains of RNA):

Episode 12.1/13: Cell Construction & Assembly Problem // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

Or if you prefer to watch here (the subject linked above starts at 44:51):

originally posted by: Paschar0
Very simple. God.

And who, or what, created God?

As already covered, there are many theories how life originated. At the core of it all is the fact that we are all composed of "inorganic" material and chemistry is involved! Yes, that old science thing called "chemistry".

As Carl Sagan famously said... “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff.”

a reply to: AlienView
Easy. Carbon.

One of the most common elements we find in the known universe.

Also happens to be one of the most reactive with other elements.

And just so happens to be the basis of life on Earth.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Episode 12.1/13: Cell Construction & Assembly Problem // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

Checkout James Tour's latest responses to Dave Farina's attempts to hide the truth concerning origin of life research, while accusing James Tour of doing everything Dave Farina is doing (and he's not the only one).

Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01

Dr. Tour DISSECTS Chemistry of an ‘Expert’ on Origin of Life - Lee Cronin, Part 02

Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More - Lee Cronin, Part 03

Dr. Tour DROWNS Religion of Unprotected Side-Chains in Water - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 01

Dr. Tour EXPOSES Troll Behavior & Forgives Chemist in the Crossfire - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 02

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: AlienView
Easy. Carbon.

One of the most common elements we find in the known universe.

Also happens to be one of the most reactive with other elements.

And just so happens to be the basis of life on Earth.

What you said is true, but it avoids the crux of the matter.

The major components of biological life do not form spontaneously. Rather, they decay spontaneously in water. Organic polymers such as DNA and Proteins are all formed by enzymatic catalysis, because without enzymes to facilitate the reaction it will not happen in water.

Abiogenesis is probabilistically equivalent to asking a monkey to write Shakespeare and you don't give him anything to write with.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Checkout James Tour's latest responses to Dave Farina's attempts to hide the truth concerning origin of life research, while accusing James Tour of doing everything Dave Farina is doing (and he's not the only one).

In those videoseries you can also see some good examples of the reverse appeal to pride that I've talked about on this forum quite a few times when discussing propaganda techniques. So once more:

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

The best examples of which can be seen in the first video I linked right away. With Dave Farina falsely accusing James Tour of making "a 14-part series about how dumb I am" (while those series consisted mostly about simply comparing the facts and the actual evidence from research with Dave Farina's claims about it), and in the same paragraph explaining how shocked he was "at how stupid it was" (Tour's video series). Around the 4 minutes mark.

For more examples of Dave Farina arguing how stupid James Tour's commentary is (primarily for his own biased audience who come to his channel for having their ears tickled that way and their pride and fear buttons pushed as explained above, feeding their carefully nurtured intellectual superiority complexes, cause nobody else is going to fall for that one, at least I hope), you can skip to 10:15 in the video below for a compilation (which is the last episode in the series so far):

After 22 minutes there's another example of this particular propaganda technique, this time with the popular phrase "he doesn't understand" (referring to the entire field of OOL research), also used a lot on this forum when someone is unwilling to accept or challenges a particular evolutionary storyline or claim, or what is called "evidence" (or implied to be evidence, usually by the expression 'indicates that...') as actual proper evidence. It's very obvious that James Tour understands the relevant chemistry subjects and OOL research quite well, but again, these remarks are meant for Dave Farina's biased audience who come to his channel to have their ears tickled according to their own desires (as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4).

originally posted by: 00018GE
Almost everywhere we’ve looked we’ve found organic molecules.

Regarding that impression, and in particular regarding the detection of amino acids in meteorites (found on earth, most of which have been in a terrestrial environment for many years or decades) or in samples from "sample return space missions", some people may want to have a look at the topic of "terrestrial contamination" or "organic contamination" (meaning the amino acids that were caused by terrestrial contamination are not of extra-terrestrial origin, but from earth).

Some things that were interesting to me from the following articles:

Amino acids in the Martian meteorite Nakhla | PNAS (1999)

... The rapid amino acid contamination of Martian meteorites after direct exposure to the terrestrial environment has important implications for Mars sample-return missions and the curation of the samples from the time of their delivery to Earth.

It also has important implications for the many publications concerning amino acids detected in meteorites found on earth, and the often connected impressions that all, most, many, or some of these amino acids are of extra-terrestrial origin (i.e. already in or on the 'meteorite'/spacerock before it entered earth's atmosphere or landed*). On which the general impression that comets, asteroids, or meteoroids (in space) contain many different types of amino acids is mostly based (based on meteorites that have been studied after they have been on earth for many years). Cause they only started doing "sample return space missions" with much more effort to minimize contamination recently (they still can't rule it out completely which we will get to later). *:it depends a bit on the reader of such publications, or those who refer to these publications in for example an OOL discussion, which exact impression they got or are giving when referring to these publications and in particular the title for example, regarding whether these amino acids are of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origin as soon as they read the word "meteorite".

Concerns of Organic Contamination for Sample Return Space Missions | SpringerLink (2020)

... So far, there are four completed and in-process sample return missions with an explicit mandate to collect organic matter: Stardust and OSIRIS-REx missions of NASA, and Hayabusa and Hayabusa2 missions of JAXA. Regardless of the target body, all sample return missions dedicate to minimise terrestrial organic contamination of the returned samples, by applying various degrees or strategies of organic contamination mitigation methods. Despite the dedicated efforts in the design and execution of contamination control, it is impossible to completely eliminate sources of organic contamination. ...

... So far, there have been two completed sample return missions with an explicit mandate to collect organic matter: the NASA Stardust mission to comet 81P/Wild 2; and the JAXA Hayabusa mission to asteroid 25143 Itokawa. Samples from two more asteroids, 162173 Ryugu and 101955 Bennu, are scheduled for return by the JAXA Hayabusa2 and NASA OSIRIS-REx spacecrafts by 2020 and 2023, respectively. ...

Small bodies, e.g., comets and asteroids, were logical target choices for the first organic sample return due to both scientific and logistical reasons. ... Furthermore, to date no such samples have shown to contain any traces of life. ... Most importantly, if the questions of greatest interest concern tracing the earliest history of organic matter in the solar system and the delivery of organic matter to the early Earth, comets and asteroids are the best sources of the relevant materials.

...

Potential Sources of Contamination

Despite the dedicated efforts in the design and execution of contamination control (Allen et al. 2011; Calaway et al. 2019; Dworkin et al. 2017; McCubbin et al. 2019; Sandford et al. 2010; Yada et al. 2014b), it is impossible to completely eliminate sources of organic contamination. The complex nature of a sample return mission elucidates the diversity of potential scenarios where various sources of organic contamination could be introduced into the returned samples (Table 1 and Fig. 2).

...

Table 1 List of terrestrial organic contaminants detected in samples returned by space missions

Organic contamination is to some degree inevitable. Contaminants can potentially be accrued during the design and construction of the spacecraft and associated components, on the course of the mission, during the sample recovery and curation processes, and/or during sample characterisation after their dissemination to analytical teams. For example, the lunar samples returned by the Apollo missions were found to contain amino acids derived from terrestrial biological contamination ...

Apollo Missions (1969-1972)

...

Without the technology that could determine the chirality and isotopic compositions of organic compounds, earlier studies could only determine the origin of the organics by comparing that to typical biogenic organics and their distributions. However, this led to divergent conclusions, as some determined that the detected organics were of terrestrial origin (e.g., handprint, urea, and Teflon contamination (Nagy et al. 1971), rocket exhaust (Burlingame et al. 1970; Fox et al. 1976; Simoneit et al. 1969)), while others determined the opposite, that the detected organics were indigenous to the lunar samples (e.g., Harada et al. 1971; Mitchell et al. 1971). A variety of other potential sources of contamination were also noted, such as terrestrial water, exhaust products from the lunar descent engine and reaction control system engines, lunar module outgassing, astronaut spacesuit leakage and venting of life support backpack, particulate abraded from spacesuits, venting of lunar module fuel and oxidiser tanks, cabin, and waste systems (Epstein and Taylor 1972; Simoneit and Flory 1970).

With the availability of the more sensitive high performance liquid chromatography fluorescence detection (HPLC/FD) technique, and based on the amino acid enantiomeric ratio, alanine and aspartic acid detected in Apollo 17 mission returned lunar soil were attributed to terrestrial biogenic contamination accrued during collection, transport, and analysis of the lunar soil (Brinton and Bada 1996). ...

In 2016, with the use of a gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry and isotope ratio mass spectrometry ... led the authors to conclude that terrestrial contamination was the primary source of the majority of the detected amino acids. ...

...

Stardust Mission (1999-2006)

... These detailed studies indicated the presence of various sources of organic contaminants, such as intrinsic organic compounds found in silica aerogel that was used to capture the Stardust samples, contaminants introduced during sample analyses, organic material being altered during hypervelocity capture, as well as new organic compounds being synthesised by impact heating.

...

... trace levels of labile organic compounds were identified in the preflight aerogel which included amino acids, ... EACA and glycine are the two most abundant amino acids detected. ... The low D/L enantiomeric ratios indicate that most of the amino acids are potentially terrestrial contaminants. The sources of amino acids and MEA detected in Stardust aerogel were suggested to be derived from the aerogel, Nylon-6 storage bag during curation, and Synlube 100 (Table 2). ...

originally posted by: 00018GE
Almost everywhere we’ve looked we’ve found organic molecules.

My previous comment was just to put the impression that all sorts of extraterrestrial amino acids have been "found" in comets, asteroids and meteoroids in our solar system, into perspective. As well as the impression that both of these are conclusively proven facts/realities (a fact is something that is factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error; so pardon the redundancy), that they have been "found" and that they exist in comets, asteroids and meteoroids in our solar system (i.e. in space).

Not to detract from my remark earlier:

Of course the bigger issue as to the naturalistic story regarding the origin of life is not so much how organic compounds or the building blocks of life emerged by chance, but how these came together to form the first lifeform, or living organism (by chance and the forces of nature as they are, and as they operate according to the laws that govern chemistry and physics; as per the naturalistic storyline).

But I find it interesting to analyze the impressions people get and give from reading news articles about supposed significant discoveries in relation to the OOL. In particular regarding intentionality (such as when some news article or research publication intentionally gives a false impression, by in this case for example, not even mentioning the term "contamination", or using it in a context that gives the impression to the reader that contamination was not an issue because this particular find was the result of a sample return space mission as opposed to the example given from meteorites found on earth, as might be the result from the way things are phrased in the article linked below).

For analytic purposes:

Building Blocks of Life Found on Samples Collected From an Asteroid | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

www.forbes.com...