Why doesn't life continously form?

[LogicalFallacy]

This is a question often asked by Christians. If God didn't create life, and its a random mix of chemicals, then why isn't new life always forming? The inference here of course is that since they don't see life always forming then that means it was specially created as a once off by God. 

 

Well today I was browsing Quora and found this thread with some pretty decent answers to can explain to Christians. In particular the analogy provide by Dale Thomas I thought was very good.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-life-continuously-formed-since-our-current-life-forms-emerged-Arent-the-same-chemicals-and-environments-available-today

[pantheory]

On 10/1/2017 at 2:23 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

This is a question often asked by Christians. If God didn't create life, and its a random mix of chemicals, then why isn't new life always forming? The inference here of course is that since they don't see life always forming then that means it was specially created as a once off by God. 

 

Well today I was browsing Quora and found this thread with some pretty decent answers to can explain to Christians. In particular the analogy provide by Dale Thomas I thought was very good.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-life-continuously-formed-since-our-current-life-forms-emerged-Arent-the-same-chemicals-and-environments-available-today

 

Although the link explains a number of good reasons why life may not be continuously created, I think the reason is that even the simplest of known life is very complicated and  may not be created very often, and may not have started here on Earth. If instead the beginnings of Earth-life started inside a large comet, it could predate the sun and our solar system. If so life would have had billions of years more time for abiogenesis (the evolution of life from chemistry) to have first occurred, then to have evolved into the simplest cellular life that we are aware of here on Earth.

 

The idea that the ingredients for life came from asteroids has been around for a long time. Here is something today about it.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/mu-esl092717.php

 

But life is very complicated, even the simplest forms of life on Earth today are still very complicated. Although most of the water on Earth came from asteroids, according to present theory, comets have ice, and the biggest could have water internally.

 

https://www.space.com/11307-comet-samples-liquid-water-stardust.html

 

Life as we know it needs water chemistry, and the complications of life might have had a lot more time to evolve inside a very large comet, icy asteroid or icy minor planet, from one or more stellar cycles (maybe 8 billion years or more) with internal heat and water, that collided with the Earth after it had solidified -- bringing elementary life to Earth.

 

 

 

[Astreja]

Perhaps life is continuously forming at a microscopic level --

 

-- and getting eaten by the life that's already here.

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Although the link explains some good reasons why life is not continuously being created, I think the reason is that life is very complicated and not created very often, and may not have started here on Earth. If instead the beginnings of Earth-life started inside a large comet, it could predate the sun and our solar system. If so life could have had a lot more time for abiogenesis (the evolution of life from chemistry) to have occurred. The idea that the ingredients for life came from asteroids has been around for a long time. Here is something today about it.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/mu-esl092717.php

 

But life is very complicated, even the simplest forms of life on Earth today are still very complicated. Although most of the water on Earth came from asteroids, according to present theory, comets have ice, and the biggest could have water internally.

 

https://www.space.com/11307-comet-samples-liquid-water-stardust.html

 

Life as we know it needs water chemistry, and the complications of life might have had a lot more time to evolve inside a very large comet, icy asteroid or icy-minor planet, from one or more stellar cycles (maybe 8 billion years or more) with internal heat and water, that collided with the Earth after it had solidified -- bringing elementary life to Earth.

 

 

 

 

Essentially this idea is the panspermia hypothesis correct? The idea that life may have been seeded to earth from an off world source.

[Vigile]

4 hours ago, Astreja said:

Perhaps life is continuously forming at a microscopic level --

 

-- and getting eaten by the life that's already here.

 

I was thinking the same thing. It can't form because organic material is food for existing life. 

 

[florduh]

Why don't snakes still talk?

[mwc]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

Why don't snakes still talk?

     They do.  They just don't walk anymore.

 

          mwc

 

[pantheory]

On 10/3/2017 at 1:34 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Essentially this idea is the panspermia hypothesis correct? The idea that life may have been seeded to earth from an off world source.

 

Yes, you're correct. This idea would be one of the panspermia group of hypotheses. If this particular version of panspermia is correct then I think the odds of

eventually finding elementary life somewhere within the oceans of Jupiter's moons, or elsewhere in our solar system, would be at least 50-50.

[sdelsolray]

Much depends on what definition/description of life is being used.  There is debate over the many definitions and descriptions.  If it is the definition which includes cell wall, metabolism, homeostasis, etc. then the likelihood of such life arising again and again on Earth is lower.  If it is the definition of a mere self-replacating molecule capable of being affected by mutaiton and natural selection then the probability is much higher.  One reason for the different probabilities is the time it would take under definition #1 for development (which would be quite long, e.g., millions of years plus or minus) versus the time it would take under definition #2 for development (much shorter time frame).  In either case, the issues already mentioned still come into play...different environment (e.g., free oxygen) and competing life forms.  Still, if the question is simply whether life frequently arose during Earth's long history (but became extinct), then it is quite possible, although I'm not sure how evidence of this occurring in the past would be found.

[pantheory]

On 10/4/2017 at 9:19 AM, sdelsolray said:

Much depends on what definition/description of life is being used.  There is debate over the many definitions and descriptions.  If it is the definition which includes cell wall, metabolism, homeostasis, etc. then the likelihood of such life arising again and again on Earth is lower.  If it is the definition of a mere self-replicating molecule capable of being affected by mutation and natural selection then the probability is much higher.  One reason for the different probabilities is the time it would take under definition #1 for development (which would be quite long, e.g., millions of years plus or minus) versus the time it would take under definition #2 for development (much shorter time frame).  In either case, the issues already mentioned still come into play...different environment (e.g., free oxygen) and competing life forms.  Still, if the question is simply whether life frequently arose during Earth's long history (but became extinct), then it is quite possible, although I'm not sure how evidence of this occurring in the past would be found.

 

Yes, I think the definition of life involving at least (1) self-replication (2) consumption (3) non-parasitic, would be required. Number 3 would be needed because an organism that requires other life for its existence could not have been the beginning form of life.  An example of this would be viruses.