[taryal]

I’m not a scientist who believes “science can never be wrong” but one who has many questions about the world which is why I want to study Buddha’s teachings. I appreciate your elaborate response and will look into the pages you referenced.

I am curious to know how you come up with the information you present in this website. It seems different from other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma. For instance, where can I find the description of 4th Jhāna (or OBE) in the Tipitaka? Also, why is it that you claim Abhidhamma can only be discovered by a Buddha but western scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi say it was likely a later addition?

[taryal]

Lal wrote:

I used Dr. Tour’s video because he mentioned some key aspects. Most of your comments are bashing his ideas. I did emphasize that I don’t agree with all of his views. I just wanted to show the views of other scientists who agree that scientists are nowhere close to making a cell in a laboratory. He is a reputable scientist.

Just bashing his ideas? I feel like you read my post but didn’t actually think about the points that I made. The guy is clearly lying and distorting scientific information. My issue is not with you showing a view different from other scientists but claiming that James Tour “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong. He may be a reputable scientist in the realm of Chemistry but what reputation does he have in the context of Origin of Life research, which is an interdisciplinary field? When someone is manipulative enough to claim that “Nothing has happened in Origin of Life research since Miller – Urey experiment”, they have lost all credibility from the scientists that study this stuff.

Lal wrote:

How exactly did I misrepresent the scientific work done up to now? Science has not been able to make a living cell, and they are nowhere close to that.

And again, I feel like you didn’t carefully read my post above. I never said you are misrepresenting the scientific work for simply claiming that scientists have not been able to artificially make a living cell. My issue is with the erroneous implication that if it can’t be done in a human lab, it couldn’t have happened due to natural process. We don’t have the technology to compress something down to its schwarzschild radius either, does that mean black holes can’t come into existence due to natural process?

Lal wrote:

Even if they can create a cell, creating a “conscious life” is an impossibility. How can inert matter give rise to feelings of joy or sadness, perceptions, etc.?

This one may be right. Many intriguing research done by scientists in UVA, Division of Perceptual Studies and in other institutions have raised compelling questions about the nature of the conscious experience. If scientific tools gets advanced enough to demonstrate that mind isn’t produced by the brain, it will cause an implication to the origin of life research where the mind will be central. This is fully consistent with Buddha dhamma, but will take a paradigm change in the mainstream Science perspective. I feel like one of the reasons why many Scientists have been stubborn with their materialistic views is because religious people say a lot of unsubstantiated things about the world, and acknowledging that consciousness isn’t created by the brain could come off as validating those claims that don’t have basis in fact. Just when you are done with the issue of materialism, you will encounter the issue of creationism. What a messed up world this is, lmao

[taryal]

[Discarded due to technical issue. Actual response has been reposted.]

[taryal]

Dr. Lal, I have read several posts on the site and most of them have been great. But there is one specific page titled “Origin Of Life – There is No Traceable Origin” that I have some issues with. While critiquing the theory that living cells (life) have origins in inert matter, you make the following assertion about a cell: 

“If it cannot be created in a laboratory under controlled conditions, it WILL NOT be possible for life to arise in a natural process starting with inert matter.” 

It looks like there is a big flaw in your reasoning. The inability to create a living cell in a laboratory under current controlled conditions does not necessarily mean that life could not have arisen through natural processes. This statement overlooks several important distinctions: 

1. Life is incredibly complex, with intricate cellular structures and processes that we are only beginning to understand. Recreating this level of complexity in a laboratory is a monumental challenge and is not achievable with current technology and knowledge. However, the absence of laboratory synthesis does not preclude the possibility of natural processes leading to the emergence of life over billions of years under different conditions on early Earth. 
2. The conditions present on early Earth billions of years ago were vastly different from those in a modern laboratory. Natural processes operate on much larger scales and over much longer periods of time than laboratory experiments. Abiogenesis Theory suggests that life may have arisen through gradual, incremental changes over millions of years, a process that is difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting. 
3. There is a BIG difference between the way humans build things and nature builds things. Nature often achieves outcomes that are far beyond human capabilities or understanding. Just because we cannot replicate certain natural phenomena in a laboratory does not mean they are impossible or do not occur in the natural world. As a prime example, we cannot create black holes in a laboratory either, but that does not mean that they can’t be formed due to natural processes as they are usual occurrence in the universe. Things happen in nature when suitable conditions are there. 

I also took some time to go through the video you referenced by a chemist named James Tour and while it seems to bring up some fair points, I feel like it has several issues. It seems obvious to me that this guy’s critique of Abiogenesis is heavily influenced by his religious views. I am not going through all of his talking points as I’m not interested in annoying myself to that extent, but I will address some of the major points he makes: 

The first thing he talks about is how “molecules don’t know how to move towards life”. He even mentions that they don’t have a “brain”, which is such an absurd thing for a chemist to say in my opinion. But regardless, this claim misunderstands the process of abiogenesis and evolution. Molecules themselves don’t possess consciousness or intentionality, so they don’t “know” how to evolve or form complex cells in the way that living organisms do. Instead, the theory of emergence of life from non-living matter proposes that it is a result of natural chemical and physical processes that operate according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Molecules interact with each other through chemical reactions, driven by factors such as energy availability, temperature, and chemical composition of the environment. Over time, these reactions can lead to the formation of more complex molecules from simpler ones. Once self-replicating molecules, such as RNA, emerged through these chemical processes, natural selection could act upon them. Variations in the molecular structures that conferred advantages in replication or stability would be more likely to persist and proliferate, while less favorable variations would diminish. This process could gradually lead to the emergence of more complex molecular structures capable of performing functions necessary for life. Complex cellular structures and processes can emerge from simpler components through the process of emergence, where the interactions between individual components give rise to collective properties and behaviors that are not present in the individual parts alone. This is a fundamental concept in systems theory and is observed in various fields, including physics, chemistry, and biology. Thus, the evolution of life from non-living matter is a consequence of natural processes operating over vast spans of time, rather than a result of molecules consciously striving towards a specific outcome. 

Tour’s presentation of how Origin of Life research is done in the context of chemical synthesis experiments is also utterly misleading. Abiogenesis research involves laboratory experiments synthesizing organic molecules which is a multifaceted and rigorous scientific endeavor that extends far beyond simple chemical mixtures. While it’s true that many experiments in abiogenesis research involve synthesizing basic organic molecules in laboratory settings, these experiments represent just one aspect of a much broader and more nuanced field of study. Abiogenesis research encompasses a wide range of interdisciplinary approaches, including experimental chemistry, theoretical modeling, astrobiology, and field studies of extreme environments. 

Tour also mentions that “Nothing has happened in OOL research since Miller – Urey experiment”. This is total nonsense. Abiogenesis research is a dynamic field and has made significant strides since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. While early experiments focused on synthesizing simple organic molecules, subsequent research has explored more complex chemical pathways, investigated alternative environments for the origin of life (such as hydrothermal vents or outer space), and developed sophisticated analytical techniques to study prebiotic chemistry. Each new discovery builds upon previous knowledge, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions and mechanisms involved in abiogenesis.  

Also, contrary to the implication in his argument, abiogenesis research is conducted with scientific rigor and adheres to rigorous experimental protocols and peer-reviewed publication standards. Scientists carefully design experiments to test specific hypotheses, control for variables, and replicate results. While there may be sensationalized media coverage of certain findings, the scientific community evaluates research based on its merits and evidence. Tour’s argument implies that scientists claim to fully understand how life formed based on simplistic laboratory experiments. In reality, scientists acknowledge the complexity and uncertainties inherent in abiogenesis research. While progress has been made in elucidating some aspects of the origin of life, many questions remain unanswered, and ongoing research continues to explore new avenues of investigation. So, the blame of sensationalized media should go to the press who exaggerate for clicks. 

Afterwards in the video, Tour talks about the challenges associated with the “synthesis” and “assembly” problems. While I think he is not fully inaccurate in depicting some of the challenges associated with understanding the origin of life through chemical synthesis, he is pretending as if they are unsolvable issues. The following are important points to consider: 

1. It’s true that living systems exhibit homochirality, but there are proposed mechanisms for how this could have emerged from initially racemic mixtures. For instance, asymmetric catalysis or chiral amplification processes could have played a role in selecting one chirality over the other. Some of the possible routes towards Homochirality includes Heterogeneous catalysis in tidal pools and Enantiomeric resolution. Also, not all biomolecules had to start out chiral like the racemic lipids, for example which might have developed this feature much later. 
2. While it’s challenging to reverse synthetic reactions once they’ve occurred, this doesn’t necessarily preclude the formation of complex molecules. Prebiotic environments were likely dynamic and could have provided opportunities for molecules to undergo multiple pathways and reactions, leading to diverse products. 
3. Prebiotic chemistry might not have had a “goal” in the human sense, but it’s plausible that certain environmental conditions or energy gradients could have driven chemical reactions towards increased complexity and organization. 
4. While time can lead to degradation or unwanted reactions, it also provides opportunities for more favorable reactions. Also, prebiotic environments could have contained catalysts or compartments that helped stabilize and protect molecules from degradation. It should also be mentioned that molecules aren’t just made on time. The process of polymerization, for example, could have been repeatedly occurring while the degradation was also happening. Degradation is irrelevant if the process is perpetually ongoing and even more irrelevant if we are dealing with self-replicating molecules. 
5. It’s true that controlling reaction conditions is important for selective synthesis, but natural environments might have provided localized conditions conducive to certain reactions. For example, mineral surfaces or hydrothermal vents could have acted as templates or catalysts for specific chemical transformations. 
6. Characterizing reactions and products is challenging in prebiotic systems, but advances in analytical techniques have allowed scientists to infer potential pathways and products based on experimental data and theoretical models. 
7. While nature doesn’t keep a laboratory notebook, it also doesn’t face the same resource limitations as a laboratory setting. Prebiotic environments were rich in diverse chemical compounds, and iterative processes over time could have led to the accumulation of complex molecules. 

To summarize, the broad stages of the current state of Abiogenesis research are the following: 

1. Generation of Small Biomolecules: This stage involves the formation of simple organic molecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids. Various experiments and theoretical models have explored how these molecules could have arisen from simple precursor molecules in prebiotic conditions, such as the primordial soup hypothesis or reactions in hydrothermal vents. 
2. Polymerization to get Biopolymers: Once small biomolecules are present, the next step is their polymerization into larger macromolecules like proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides, and lipids. Polymerization could have occurred through various mechanisms, including condensation reactions on mineral surfaces, template-directed synthesis, or catalysis by metal ions or organic molecules. 
3. Assembly into Organized Structures: In this stage, the macromolecules formed in the previous step start to organize into more complex structures. This could involve the self-assembly of lipids into membranes, the formation of RNA or protein complexes, or the encapsulation of biomolecules within vesicles or other compartments. 
4. Formation of Protobionts: Protobionts are hypothetical precursors to living cells, consisting of organized structures with some properties of life, such as metabolism, growth, and replication. Various models propose different scenarios for how protobionts could have emerged, including lipid vesicles with simple metabolic pathways, RNA-based replicators, or combinations of both. Jeewanu protocells, for example, have been synthesized since the 1960s. 

I am going to stop it here but am willing to discuss more if you would like. I would like to make it clear that I am not asserting that the hypothesis “life has origins in inert matter” is certainly true. I do not deny the possibility of the Buddha’s description in the Aggañña sutta. It is certainly a lot more logical than the creationist model. But I also think that it is unfair to misrepresent the scientific work that has been done in this field. So, I think you should make some corrections and stop mentioning that some evangelical liar “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong when he clearly does not. 

[Author]

Posts