Posted: Dec 19, 2017 2:24 pm
by Wortfish
Calilasseia wrote:

But it's typical of creationist apologetics to misrepresent said research, not to mention peddle the usual duplicitous pairing of responses to the outcome, namely:

[1] If the reactions in the experiment fail to produce a relevant result, claim that this purportedly "proves" testable natural process cannot be responsible for life;

[2] If the reactions in the experiment succeed in producing a relevant result, claim that this purportedly involves "design", when it does nothing of the sort.

What part of "we don't know if it will work when we begin, let's try it and see" equals "design" of the sort creationists routinely pontificate about? Oh that's right, it doesn't, because the sort of "design" creationists routinely pontificate about, involves perfect prior knowledge of the outcome. Except that, oops, scientists have never had this.

A controlled and designed experiment hardly involves trial and error, as you ridiculously suggest. The experimenters may not know the final outcome, but they select materials and reagents with a good view to what may happen, as Sutherland obviously did when he first published his results in 2009.

But if no one is around to observe whether or not the reactions are actually working, what's the fucking point of doing the experiment? That's the whole fucking point of experiments in case you failed to read the memo - try something out, and learn from the outcome!

Observation is fine. But setting up the stages of the experiment in such a way that isolates the materials from each other, is just form of artificial selection for non-living chemicals.

Try because the moment one set of reactions works, and produces viable protocells, those protocells are going to interfere with any subsequent different sets of reactions that might work. At the very least, by consuming the reactants or products as food.

At the moment, protocells are being purposefully designed as proofs of concept. Do pay attention.

This is why scientists are looking for other venues, to see if life appeared there. So that they have more than one instance to work with. Because the moment any set of chemical reactions succeeds in producing life, the products of that set of reactions will, by definition, shut down any other options.

Nobody is trying to produce life through a series of chemical reactions. They are trying to break up the huge problem into smaller parts that may or not be solvable. The first stage is producing lipids, amino acids and nucleic bases. That's still a long way from "life".

A statement whose fatuous nature will only become even more apparent, the moment life is found on Titan, Enceladus or Europa.

Well. You are basing your claim on faith. But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated. Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years. Miracles, by their very nature, do not happen with any regularity....which is what we see with the origin of life.