Abiogenesis

Lol. I didn't even see that.Yes, of course. I'm not very good at physics. I had actually intended to find out what force held electrons together, but forgot to change that when I decided to opt for the strong force instead.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

Razd asked an important question.Admins.... Please allow me here, I intend to be as respectfully frank as I am capable. If you feel the need to respond Razd, perhaps we should move it to the perceptions of reality thread. We're getting off on a tangent.I asked why the mechanism was being sought for a reason. To provoke her to consider her motivations for herself. Perhpas they are pure...But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.Razd:Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?Razd:Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.Where would you draw that line Razd?Is there any place you presume to judge we should not go, and why?Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are? If reality has not already established them, then we are left to wander for ourselves.There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?No?But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!You may think I am being extreme, but I think you are making light of it on the other end of the spectrum. There is some truth to your argument Razd, but don't forget it's limitations.And if we (as uncivilized as we are) look down with disdain and moral condemnation upon such atrocities, how must we look to an actually moral and Holy being? What would an alien such as the Holy God I believe in, think of you and me? I think that compared to Him, we are worse off than Josef Mengele is compared to us.I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...Razd:All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one! And I say that knowing what it is like to cut off my own legs now and then.Perhaps I am childish and overbearing at times; mea culpa, mea culpa once again. But I am trying to understand these things...

Thank you for your opinion. It is shared by many.

this thread is not your personal pulpit for you to preach in.this thread is not about morality.this thread is not about rob's moral problems with learning.this thread is about abiogenesis--the evidence that supports or refutes it.i'm asking for a suspension. as soon as you come back, you start right again with the off-topic shit. enough's enough. you got a 3 hour warning. then a 6 hour warning. neither have done any good apparently.

24 hours to try to figure out how to stay on topic.

This thread is about abiogenesis. NOBODY, and mean NOBODY, knows anything important enough about abiogenesis to tell another poster here that he/she is wrong about how it happened. The Creationists and the Evolutionists are equally in the dark about where life came from and how it got here. I think a few posters on this thead need to put their arrogant peckers back in their pants. And for Admins and their henchmen to crucify a Creationist to make their peckers look larger is PURE CHICKEN SH!T.Pissants, get a clue. You know less than you think you do.”HM

Well, creationists are certainly in the dark. However, chemists today know more about what is and isn't possible. We still see creationsists talking about the impossibility of DNA coming about "by chance", talking about the chiralty problem and so on. These are now partially understood by the chemists. There isn't enough information to be very firm on any conclusions about how life arose but there isn't none. None is better than zero even if closer to zero than a full explanation.Creationists believe god-did-it but have exactly ZERO idea about how. He certainly didn't do it from dust or from ribs. So the few ideas that they do have are wrong.

I don't think God did it”committed abiogenesis”but I do think nature did it somehow. My point is centered around the idea that a digital coe had to co-evolve into existence when abiogenesis took place. If all there was to it was a batch of chemicals in a bath of energy I think abiogenesis would not be a mystery to us at all. We'd be doing it routinely for kinds good and bad reasons. But the fact is that a genetic system”a digital communication system”had to adjoin the molecules to make abiogenesis happen.Until biologists can demonstrate how the code originated in the molecules they will not know what abiogenesis is. However, I must point out that in Message 158 Doddy mentioned that F. H. C. Crick has already explained, allegedly, "The origin of the genetic code." (1968, J. Mol. Biol., 38, pp. 367-379). No well enough yet, obviously, to duplicate it in a laboratory (which may be asking for too much). I have not read Crick's paper, but I have ordered a copy of it through my public library. I will be very eager to learn how a digital coding system with an unambiguous alphabet arose from that magnanimous brew of chemicals.I also googled up this paper by J. J. Hopfield on the "Origin of the Genetic Code: A Testable Hypothesis Based on tRNA Structure, Sequence, and Kinetic Proofreading". I intend to look at that one, too.”HM

To recap... Kuresu:It is only to show the unlikelyhood in terms of probability. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of Abiogenesis (which remain a mystery and are only theoretical) but addresses the fundamental issue of the almost incalculable unlikelyhood of the possibility to begin with.It takes more than imagination to ignore such mathematical probabiliites.I found a quote that helps put it into perspective. I only ask that you think about it. (Source: talk given by request at the U.N. 2002 / Oops, something lost )

so you're left to an argument of incredulity, essentially. it's incredibly improbable, hence, it didn't happen.that's a weak argument rob, very weak. especially when we have evidence that there once was no life on earth. and now there is. (which means that abiogenesis did happen--panspermia only shifts the question to where it happened, and saying god did it doesn't explain how he did it).oh, and the quote you cite is crap. why? here's why: (bolding mine)
which enzyme? or did he mean genome? at which point, it's still crap, but for a different reason.why would you use the human genome for abiogenesis? You wouldn't. all model's I'm aware of suggest a far more simpler genome. think of DNA/RNA a few hundred (if that) base pairs in length. Not one in the millions. So his argument (if he meant "genome") is bulk because it is misrepresenting what is being argued for. No one is arguing for the creation of the whole human genome except for by evolution.and by the way, what's so "complex" about
1/10^40,000? pretty simple mathematical statement to me.ABE:
and thank you for at least staying on topic. you are more than welcome to start your own thread about what got you suspended.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Any time probabilities are produced it is necessary to see and understand the calculations that have gone into producing them.Others have already suggested some places where your souces information may prove to be based on faulty reasoning but until we see the details we can't point them all out to you.From prior experience with this kind of thing I'll tell you that we can expect it to be very poorly done indeed and only producing utter junk. You can show the calculations if you think that this time it is actually well founded and well executed.

Kuresu:It's no weaker than the last sentance in your reply really...Because the naturalist relies on the same incredulity. He offers no explaination.There is only one difference...The naturalist believes that a mindless material force produced his intelligence because 'said naturalist' exists.The creationist believes an supremely intelligent mind produced 'intelligence' which too often thinks of itself as 'intelligent', and henceforth became 'unintelligent.Either way you have incredulity. I don't think it is weak, so much as it is all either side has to go on.As for the human 'enzyme'... I am no mathmatician, but don't the odds stay the same irrespective of the process? Whether you start with a single celled organism or not? What I mean is... to get from 'nothing biological' to 'human' is his point. Isn't the 'in-between stuff' irrelevant mathematically?I suspect Chandra Wickramasinghe knows that.
But perhaps I am wrong...Btw, how do you know there was no life on earth at one time?
Don't get me wrong, I believe that... because I believe God's Word. To me, the only life preceding life on earth was the eternal God.But do naturalist really have evidence that this is true?As for panspermia, I agree with you. It only shifts the problem elsewhere.

We're talking about abiogenesis, not the evolution of Homo sapiens. The odds of getting a human are not relevant to the topic. What is relevant are the odds of getting life in its simplest form.Edited by DrJones*, : cause the quote disappeared.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Nosy:Please do tell before planting seeds of doubt so shamelessly. Did you mean 'reasoning' or 'motivation'?I think I know what you're eluding to, but it has no bearing on this issue.I invite you to study my source. Be my guest

Dr. Jones:I guess that's what Kuresu meant...And it is true that abiogenesis is within the strictly emperical, conventional, modern, and 'methodological naturalist' (scientific) context of the great cosmic umbrella we so lovingly call... evolution (whether I like the assupmtions or not).Ok Dr. jones, this time (and you had better enjoy it ) I concede the point.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : tidying up a bit...