Life origins (aka creationism vs abiogenesis)

[Achilles]

It is an unfortunately reality that many people consider the scientific theory of evolution to be a life origins topic. The reality is that the theory of evolution makes no claims regarding life origins. The theory states that all life sprung forth from single-celled organisms and over a period of billions of years, evolved into the various flora and fauna that we see around us today.

 

What it does not do is make definitive statements regarding where those single-celled organisms come from. Some theists that accept the theory of evolution are likely to state that god created them and that evolution is part of his/her/its plan. Others consider abiogenesis to be a promising hypothesis while other who are more honest and less brave simply opt to cast their vote for "I have no idea".

 

Before we kick things off, I'd like to establish some ground rules for this thread:

 

1) This is a life origins thread. Discussion regarding the theory of evolution should probably go into one of the evolution threads. This is about how life started, not about whether or not life changed.

 

2) "god of the gaps" is not allowed. In other words, the christian god will not be declared winner by default just because "science doesn't know". Of course religious figures and themes will be welcome, but "goddunit" is not.

 

That's it! So, creationism vs abiogenesis - what are your thoughts?

 

PS: Could a mod please fix the title of this thread? It should be "Life origins" (with 2 "i"s in "origins"). Thanks! Done --Jae

[PoiuyWired]

Well to "kick it off" I would have to mention a few things.

 

1) How do you define "Life" for the purpose of this thread. Do you consider simple Amino Acids to be Life's Origin, or Complex ones, or Viruses? Obviously a Single Cell would be considered to be Life, how about Mitocondrea(sp?) that contains its own genetic materials.

 

As said, the evolution gap between Virus to single cell is not known yet to scientists, so the above question does directle/indirectly affacts the discussion.

 

2) Topic is about Life's Origin, not "Life on Earth's Origin" So the idea of Bacteria from outter space and such is not a factor here. The topic is about how the said "seeds of lifeform" comes tobe.

 

OK, now those are out of the way, here is what we know. We know that simple amino acids can be created by recreating the environments of a scientific guess of young Earth. And, conditions of such "young Earth" is not unique, Venus is currently at that stage(soon I guess, need to check) and Mars being a Had Been. We know that Amino Acids are the basic Building block of Lifeforms on this planet.

 

We know that complex amino acids can be created, via the use of simple ones. Obviously the chance of that happening is possable, and the probability of this naturally occurring is unknown(not sure) But on the other hand, its a long long time on a relatively big environment compare to the size of a molecule of amino acid, chances of that happening is probably definite, its a matter of the number and concentration being enough to "evolve" into something else.

 

 

*hops*

 

On the side note, we have successfully created a viral structure via artificial means, does it mean that we have created "life"?

[Achilles]

1) How do you define "Life" for the purpose of this thread. Do you consider simple Amino Acids to be Life's Origin, or Complex ones, or Viruses? Obviously a Single Cell would be considered to be Life, how about Mitocondrea(sp?) that contains its own genetic materials.

Good question. I imagine that someone will want to bring up Urey-Miller at some point, so I think amino acids will have to be allowed.

 

2) Topic is about Life's Origin, not "Life on Earth's Origin" So the idea of Bacteria from outter space and such is not a factor here. The topic is about how the said "seeds of lifeform" comes tobe.

I don't think we need to nail ourselves down on this one either. Again, trying to anticipate both sides of the debate, I imagine that someone will try to invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics at some point. A perfectly valid counter argument is that earth is not a closed system via space dust, meteors, etc. Therefore, I think it is a factor.

 

OK, now those are out of the way, here is what we know. We know that simple amino acids can be created by recreating the environments of a scientific guess of young Earth. And, conditions of such "young Earth" is not unique, Venus is currently at that stage(soon I guess, need to check) and Mars being a Had Been. We know that Amino Acids are the basic Building block of Lifeforms on this planet.

 

We know that complex amino acids can be created, via the use of simple ones. Obviously the chance of that happening is possable, and the probability of this naturally occurring is unknown(not sure) But on the other hand, its a long long time on a relatively big environment compare to the size of a molecule of amino acid, chances of that happening is probably definite, its a matter of the number and concentration being enough to "evolve" into something else.

Right. An examination of the model will show that even with astronomically improbable odds, the sheer scale of time would reduce abiogenesis to a inevitability.

 

On the side note, we have successfully created a viral structure via artificial means, does it mean that we have created "life"?

I don't know if that counts. If you referencing what I think you're referencing, my understanding is that was more of a "franken-virus" than a virus created from scratch. Yes we created a completely new genome, but we did it using existing parts. My understanding could be wrong though.

 

Thanks for your post.

[Quanon]

I'll try to do my best to explain ( bit tired and english isn't my first language)

: Not to long ago I saw an interesting documentry of the BBC about one of the moons of Jupiter ( the one with covered with Ice and has an Atmosphere) .

 

In this atmosphere there was a right combination of gasses , wich can also be found here on earth, sorry I don't know their names any more or what the combination exactly was .

 

Should look this up , somewhere .

 

Thing is , when energy ; like lighting , strikes within this mix of gas, you get some building blocks for : amino acids . I think they where proteins ... slap me if I'm wrong .

 

This might be the "natural" cause of what we see in a way as life . So what if these proteins fall down or get indeed mixed up with water , they can form bonds , creating strings and get more and more complex .

 

Over sometime you might indeed have : cells

 

Allthough , I don't consider that there's only one way to create life or there's one form of life .

 

As humans where limited in observing and knowing of our universe , prisoners of our limited world and mind even.

 

So for me Earth's life is one of the many possibiltes , the uni ( or multi) verse offers such a wide range it's hard to imagine the odds and changes that we will ever find to anwser to life or even its meaning .

[Achilles]

The moon is called Europa.

 

ABE: Here is the wiki if you'd like to read more about it.

 

Also, the process that you're describing (as originally describe in the BBC documentary, I'm assuming) is abiogenesis.

[Quanon]

The moon is called Europa.

 

ABE: Here is the wiki if you'd like to read more about it.

 

Also, the process that you're describing (as originally describe in the BBC documentary, I'm assuming) is abiogenesis.

 

Ah , thanks , it's very interesting subject and thanks for the link .

 

No idea this theory or way of thinking was called abiogenesis .

 

Knowledge is great

[PoiuyWired]

Well, but I think Quanon does help us a bit by outlining the process of abiogenesis in a few simple sentences. To note that, in theory the process can exist anywhere within the galaxy given the right type of environment and materials, and enough time.

 

Obviously for these simple amino acids to go anywhere also requires the right type of enviromnent and enough time. The exact chance of this happening is not known, since we don't have enough demographic from other planets.

 

Now, being able to create organics is still a bit far from a complex lifeform though, and we have not been able to collect many samples outside of earth so far(lab or outside lab). Well, to be fair other than earth there is only Mars and Venus for us to investigate with, well at least these are places that are close enough for any actual affordable research. But the idea we are talking about is "Creation of life" not "creation of human" so those topics belong to one of the Evolution threads.

 

now, I would like to hear about the other side of the viewpoint, the ones on Creationism.

[Achilles]

Obviously for these simple amino acids to go anywhere also requires the right type of enviromnent and enough time. The exact chance of this happening is not known, since we don't have enough demographic from other planets.

With the exception of the planets in our solar system, it is very difficult to capture any data on planets at all. All of the specks of light we can see (besides those of our sister planets) belong to stars. We can detect the presence of planets around some stars based on the gravitational pull that those planets have on the star. Needless to say, only big planets (ala Jupiter) can do this, so it's very difficult for us to detect earth-sized planets around distant stars.

 

This doesn't mean that earth-sized planets don't exist anywhere else, it just means that we don't have sufficient technology to see them. Various cosmological theories predict their existence though, so if/when we do find them, those theories can be either verified or disproved.

 

I say all this because it (hopefully) puts the prospect of liquid water elsewhere in our solar system in the appropriate (significant) context. We know that liquid water is necessary for life, therefore Mars and Europa give us a chance to test and refine the abiogenesis hypothesis without having to wait hundreds (thousands? tens of thousands?) of years to visit other solar systems.

 

Now, being able to create organics is still a bit far from a complex lifeform though, and we have not been able to collect many samples outside of earth so far(lab or outside lab). Well, to be fair other than earth there is only Mars and Venus for us to investigate with, well at least these are places that are close enough for any actual affordable research.

Kinda sorta true.

Using spectroscopy we can determine the composition of visible stars and nearby planets ("super-earth"-like planets and so on). If spectroscopy can show that the elements necessary for life exist on planets that we can "see" but not visit, we can then refine the hypothesis while we make plans to send unmanned missions there, etc.

 

In other words, we have more than just Mars and Venus (and Europa) to play with.

 

now, I would like to hear about the other side of the viewpoint, the ones on Creationism.

Taken from the wiki:

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.

Creationism is tricky because it, like so much else in religious doctrine, is open to interpretation. For instance, a deist might say that god created the universe, put the laws of nature into motion and then left.

 

A more liberal (?) theistic interpretation might say that god created the universe, put the laws of nature into play, and then stuck around to observe and make corrections as needed. Yet another interpretation is that god did the prerequisite stuff and purposely guided the creation of life.

 

And then there's the conservative version, whereby the account in genesis is the truth: god created everything in 6 days, including humans. In other words, all life magically appeared in current form (the fall, notwithstanding).

 

So when we talk about "creationism" we are talking about any mix of those things (plus any other major variants that I may have left out).

 

Because all of those creation hypothesis stem from the existence of a supernatural god, there is no possible scientific test that can be derived to begin supporting or eliminating any of them. In other words, they are all equal so far as their truthiness is concerned. Were we able to scientifically test for god, that god would then lose his/her/its supernatural status and would be trapped like a genie in a bottle in the natural world. Of course, we would then have to begin looking for a supernatural cause for the previously-supernatural-but-now-natural cause.

 

This is the basis behind the problem of infinite regression. The argument is that something has to kick this whole thing off. There has to be a first cause or a prime mover, i.e. something that does something so that something else happens. It seems ludicrous to think that the universe happened all by itself. SOMETHING had to have caused it to happen. Even if we accept the big bang, SOMETHING had to have created the conditions that made TBB possible.

 

Theists insist that this SOMETHING has to be their god (not some other god...their god). The problem is that if it is ludicrous to think that the universe could have happened all by itself, then it is equally ludicrous to think that god could have happened all by his/her/its self (technically, it's far more ludicrous, but I won't get into that in this post). And if something created that god, then something created that something, and something else created that, and so on and so forth. Infinite regression (working backwards forever).

 

Theist have a counter-argument against infinite regression though. Their god exists outside of space and time. He/she/it did not require a cause because they are infinite and therefore not subject to the rules. This introduces a couple of big problems that theists tend to want to ignore.

 

First, this argument can be summarized as "something that came from nothing". If this sounds familiar, that's because this is frequently used as the big show-stopper in the abiogenesis, big bang, evolution debate. It would seem that whether you are a theist, diest, atheist, or whatever, at some point you have to accept that something really did come from nothing.

 

Hopefully, every one can see the how this creates the second problem. Just as we had to apply the rules to both sides to saddle the creation argument with infinite regression, it's repeal similarly frees both sides. If we accept that something must have come from nothing, then the argument that that particular something is god (specifically your god) becomes incredibly, incredibly weak.

 

Therefore, we are left with left with a god that is completely unobservable and offers no verifiable explanations about our universe. Furthermore, any explanation that could be offered can be quickly replaced with observable, verifiable explanations provided by scientific inquiry or with the honest admission that none of us really knows.

 

Hopefully that helps to provide the creationist viewpoint and some of it's problems. Thanks for reading.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Ah, the infinite regress of Aquinas' unmoved mover.... it really is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

 

Yet, as several have noted, you have the options of saying "God did it!" or "It happens like this, but not sure how it started" or "I have no freaking clue!"

 

Oddly, intuition is our only sure guide, and it's so damned individual. Chicken or egg, god or god-egg?

 

I have long lived in the hands up in the air camp, although I always have a sneaking suspicion that there is some grander entity, albeit far different than any one conceived by organized religion. That's a matter for a different thread.

 

Back on topic, I my intuition tells me that a very liberal construction of creationism is the correct answer. Read VERY LIBERAL as I have very serious reservations about what a supreme being/deity figure is, and also feel that such an entity is not concerned with the things our religions attribute to it. According to this liberal interpretation I'm theorizing, abiogenesis would therefore be a part of the big Kahuna's plan.

 

I also don't cling to hard to this intuition, because I don't really believe it. But it helps me stop thinking about it

[Achilles]

Yet, as several have noted, you have the options of saying "God did it!" or "It happens like this, but not sure how it started" or "I have no freaking clue!"

Pretty close. We know what happened (the materials necessary for live formed from non-living matter), we just aren't 100% sure how it happened. Some people say that God made use from dirt and ribs. Others say that it happened naturally with self-replicating strands of chemical compounds. One of these is verifyable and the other is not (that we have insuffient understanding of how to do it now is irrelevant).

 

Therefore the most honest answer is "we're not really sure how it happened, but we have some pretty good ideas". Creationists will tell you that they already know that god did it, even though they can't tell you how, when, or why. And of course none of it is verifyable.

 

Oddly, intuition is our only sure guide, and it's so damned individual. Chicken or egg, god or god-egg?

I'd say we have significantly more than intuition. The best answer that intuition can give us is an uneducated guess. The patient examination of chemistry gives us a much better idea of what probably happened. We know what to look for just not where to find it.

 

Back on topic, I my intuition tells me that a very liberal construction of creationism is the correct answer.

Ah but then we're inviting the infinite regression argument that I addressed and you bemoaned earlier.

 

Read VERY LIBERAL as I have very serious reservations about what a supreme being/deity figure is, and also feel that such an entity is not concerned with the things our religions attribute to it. According to this liberal interpretation I'm theorizing, abiogenesis would therefore be a part of the big Kahuna's plan.

Sounds like deism perhaps?

 

I also don't cling to hard to this intuition, because I don't really believe it. But it helps me stop thinking about it

Heh

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Pretty close. We know what happened (the materials necessary for live formed from non-living matter), we just aren't 100% sure how it happened. Some people say that God made use from dirt and ribs. Others say that it happened naturally with self-replicating strands of chemical compounds. One of these is verifyable and the other is not (that we have insuffient understanding of how to do it now is irrelevant).

 

I agree with most of this, except for the last part... insufficiency now? Now only? Or ever? I'm perhaps a little pessimistic on our ability to unravel everything.

 

I'd say we have significantly more than intuition. The best answer that intuition can give us is an uneducated guess. The patient examination of chemistry gives us a much better idea of what probably happened. We know what to look for just not where to find it.

 

Well, yes and no. I agree with patience, and believe there is still a great deal to be understood in the science of biology. I think the greatest discoveries will be those that were reached on a hunch... (an educated guess still is more than intuition, so I'll have to concede most of this point )

 

Ah but then we're inviting the infinite regression argument that I addressed and you bemoaned earlier.

 

I know. Arrgh. I know. Thus the sleeplessness I mentioned it because it's one of those God-awful (pardon my punniness) conundrums. Didn't something have to come first? I'm not claiming anything there.... it's a real question, and damned if anyone can give me a great answer on that.

 

Sounds like deism perhaps?

 

I do like a lot of deistic thought, but I have a particularly pervasive problem with it - I don't think "God" gives a god-damn about anything we do.... s/he's a blissfull observer, a mad scientist, if s/he exists at all, and could care less about our "morality" or "correct" behavior.

 

My position is more or less based on a philosopher from your neck of the woods, Achilles. Your name's not David Chalmers, is it?

 

I'm more of a substance dualist. (YIKES!!!!!)

 

That's why I put intuition out there. I think it's real, and does count for something. It comes from my consciousness, which cannot so far be satisfactorily displayed on any machine table or flow chart. Many scientists claim it doesn't exist! To me, that's absurd.

 

So, I believe in something that is outside of our "scientific reality" (understanding that current science is evolving). That doesn't make it too far a stretch to think that "God" couldn't occupy a similar (non) space.... ?

[Achilles]

I agree with most of this, except for the last part... insufficiency now? Now only? Or ever? I'm perhaps a little pessimistic on our ability to unravel everything.

I would say insufficient now. Maybe never is true, but only time will tell. Geology gives us more information about conditions on ancient earth. Astronomy tells us more about conditions on other bodies far away that may now or in the past harbor simple life. Chemists and biochemists continue to tinker away in laboratories, etc. I would say that it's only a matter of time.

 

I think the greatest discoveries will be those that were reached on a hunch...

Hunches and mistakes. Penicillin, radioactivity, silly putty - all discoveries that came from mistakes

 

Didn't something have to come first?

I think that the answer we have to learn to live with is "no". It's painful to wrap our head around, but that's largely because we're a product of the system. It's the same thing as accepting that there was no time before the big bang. Well, what was there 1 second before the big bang? No possible answer because time didn't exist then.

 

Have you ever tried to teach a pet alegbra? Probably wouldn't work too well. Because some pets aren't intelligent? Nay. Many pets show clear signs of intelligence, but they aren't sufficiently wired to "get it". It's entirely possible that we aren't wired to "get" no time before the big bang or invisible strings of energy that stretched out over infinite distances and create a universe each time they collide.

 

My position is more or less based on a philosopher from your neck of the woods, Achilles. Your name's not David Chalmers, is it?

Sounds interesting. I'll have to check out his work.

 

If you haven't heard of him already, you may appreciate V.S. Ramachandran. He's a neurologist rather than a philosopher, but he specializes in consciousness. If you check him out, let me know what you think.

 

That doesn't make it too far a stretch to think that "God" couldn't occupy a similar (non) space.... ?

Sure. It's possible. No scientist worth his salt will tell you that we can completely rule it out. However until there is some way to disprove the hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to accept it.

[Achilles]

Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years

WASHINGTON - Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they're getting closer.

 

Experts expect an announcement within three to 10 years from someone in the now little-known field of "wet artificial life."

Link

[Ray Jones]

It's the same thing as accepting that there was no time before the big bang. Well, what was there 1 second before the big bang? No possible answer because time didn't exist then.

Actually you need time to be existent when you say "1 second before". Also, when there is a bunch of events leading to the big bang as a result that only can mean time was also relevant before the big bang. In fact, nothing can happen without time, because you cannot have a change without it.

[Achilles]

^^^^

 

Case in point

[Arcesious]

Well, i'm a Chrisitan, and i think that 'Goddunit' as you say.

But why can any other Religions besides Christianity be used in this discussion and not Chrisitianity? That doesn't make sense to me.

But still, i am quite quizzical of how anything but Christianity is right. How did those Amino Acids form together without RNA to guide them, and without RNA, amino Acids and DNA can't be made, and the same way the other way around? so i guess i go for 'goddunit' in this discussion, although saying that may not be allowed.

 

But still, i will contribute to this dicussion under the rules you have established and attempt to support my beliefs in a discrete manner through scientific facts as well as i can.

 

Aw, the great questions: How time and space originated.

 

If there was a big bang, then what created what created the big bang? The only answer now is God to that question. What created God then? that question goes unanswered, but in my beliefs, GOD always existed. it doesn't make sense, but there's nothing to explain how it could be possible, and not enough to fully disprove it yet since the only explanation to the universe's origination is God right now.

One idea i have is this:

 

Mankind is about to be destroyed along with the universe. Manknd is highly advanced. Mankind has discovered how time and space really works almost, being really close to crackign the great answer.

Mankind then creates some sort of super-expansive device that explodes and creates materials that keep on forming more an d more materials from simple never-ending chemical reaction.

Mankind then fidns a way to send the device throug htime,back before everything ever existed. The universe is detroyed, with the device now existing at he start of time, and the device explodes, and creates the universe over a great period of time. Earth and mankind is again formed, and time repeats itself infinitely, as this same process occurs many times, nothing ever being diffferent.

THat is wild theory, but it's all i have that isn't on God's side. I amy be a Chrisitian, but that's just a wild theory for you guys to think over. Maybe the device created God then? i dunno. I guess i'll just have to see what you guys think of this possible theory of mine.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually you need time to be existent when you say "1 second before". Also, when there is a bunch of events leading to the big bang as a result that only can mean time was also relevant before the big bang. In fact, nothing can happen without time, because you cannot have a change without it.

 

Well, Hawkings and Einstein (among other physicists) determined that space and time were formed at the Big Bang. Are you saying they're wrong?

 

Achilles, I'll be very interested to see if sticking some nucleotides inside a cell membrane will suddenly overcome that giant barrier of making something non-living alive. It's not that hard to make a cell membrane of phospholipids, and it's not hard to make nucleotides and proteins. However, getting them to do something besides sit around in a flask as just another bunch of chemicals is another matter entirely.

[Achilles]

Jae,

 

All you need is a few short strands of self-replicating chemicals and evolution takes care of the rest

 

Here is a short (and fun!) YouTube clip that covers the basics.

[Jae Onasi]

Jae,

 

All you need is a few short strands of self-replicating chemicals and evolution takes care of the rest

 

Here is a short (and fun!) YouTube clip that covers the basics.

 

If it were that easy, we'd have done it already.

[Achilles]

Interesting argument. How would you care do defend it?

[Ray Jones]

Well, Hawkings and Einstein (among other physicists) determined that space and time were formed at the Big Bang. Are you saying they're wrong?

Did I? I thought I said that when you describe something as "before" there has to be an "after" after that "before" and another "before" before the "before" after that one. My question was how can we have a process leading to the big bang (and thus space and time) when we need time for that process to exist.

 

What they might address is that at the point just before the big bang we have all matter of this universe put into a pi-pa-poopy-loopy small form of energy thinger. Energy exists without the need for space and time, as it describes nothing but a state. When we have the whole universe put into energy, we have no space or time existent within that universe. That does not mean time is non-existent outside of that universe.

 

That said, Hawkings and Einstein would probably agree they might be advertising a flat earth theory here ;

[Jae Onasi]

We can create RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins and all the other building blocks. Getting them to self-replicate is the hurdle we haven't overcome yet, and simply putting them into a cell membrane is going to give us cell membranes full of protein and RNA/DNA precursors rather than a working proto-cell.

[Ray Jones]

We can create RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins and all the other building blocks. Getting them to self-replicate is the hurdle we haven't overcome yet

But in case we succeed with this one day, wouldn't you still say it's "his" work making all this possible?

[Achilles]

That does not mean time is non-existent outside of that universe.

First, assuming that we did accept this, we would most likely be dealing with time outside of a context that we currently understand. Second, still assuming that we accepted this, something would had to have existed outside of that, and it would have been timeless.

 

At some point we have to accept that time had a beginning and "before" that there was no time. We can play infinite regression with a model that we don't understand or we can accept the 4-dimensional (3 physical dimensions + time) explanation modeled in relativity until a better explanation is discovered.

 

We can create RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins and all the other building blocks. Getting them to self-replicate is the hurdle we haven't overcome yet, and simply putting them into a cell membrane is going to give us cell membranes full of protein and RNA/DNA precursors rather than a working proto-cell.

Just so I'm clear, are you arguing that since we don't know how it's done, it isn't possible? That's what the last two posts have sounded like and I just want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly before I respond.

 

But in case we succeed with this one day, wouldn't you still say it's "his" work making all this possible?

Hi Ray,

I think this is dangerously close to being an example of the "god of the gaps" argument that I asked everyone to avoid in the first post. Since a natural process would negate the need for a supernatural explanation, there is no rational reason to impose one. Furthermore, even if we were to (just for fun) blindly accept that it were the work of a supernatural being, we would not be able to determine whether it was done by a boy-god, a girl-god, a cow-god, or a floating-spaghetti god.

[Ray Jones]

At some point we have to accept that time had a beginning and "before" that there was no time.

I don't agree. Time has no beginning and no end. Time itself is not even a "thing" or has a speed, or size, or direction. Time is nothing more than what's between two different states of the universe, multiverse, whatever you want. Time describes the fact that things change. Whatever there was before the big bang, or before any big bang or the like, it was there until the big bang took place.

 

 

Hi Ray,

I think this is dangerously close to being an example of the "god of the gaps" argument that I asked everyone to avoid in the first post. Since a natural process would negate the need for a supernatural explanation, there is no rational reason to impose one. Furthermore, even if we were to (just for fun) blindly accept that it were the work of a supernatural being, we would not be able to determine whether it was done by a boy-god, a girl-god, a cow-god, or a floating-spaghetti god.

 

Well, I am all for a non-divine origin of life. To rephrase my point and question towards Jae (since Jae often states that she doubts life originated on its own and against all odds), in case we ever manage to "create" a living cell, how would you see the origin of that life then?