Abiogenisis by the Numbers

And also,Fine-Tuning of Solar System Design for Life
by Hugh RossReasons To Believe, Updated June, 2004 Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:24 AM

Sorry, I was replying to Pink Sasquatch when he ask me about the 150 criteria and who came up with them in an earlier post. My contention is that these criteria are necessary predecessors to any discussion of abiogenisis; in other words the conditions are what set up any possibility of abiogenesis and wouldn't we have to include the odds of that set of circumstances into the calculations. I will refrain from including long articles in the future. Thanks

You are obviously way out of my league and speak way over my head. But I would like to know, if you get the chance, the basis of your sketicism towards Dr. Ross. He of all the scientific based creationists makes the most sense to me and stays current with advances in knowledge on many fronts.

Pink Sasquatch replied: "More importantly, what do hurrricanes, flora fires, and Neptune have to do with the initial formation of life? Nothing."I am sure I could not do this the justice that could be done if you would read the articles he references at the end. But I will take a meager stab at it. Hurricanes apparently provide a redepositing of certain nutrients upon land masses, forest fires renew and fertilize large areas of land for fresh green oxygen producing flora, and Neptune along with the other planets in our solar system are important in several ways: there orbits cannot interfer with the earth's, and in fact provide gravitational stability, and the outer planets collect a certain amount of cosmic debris which might otherwise bombard planet earth.As far as the initial formation of life, I think you have made the point that we can't know what conditions were responsible for life getting started, but some similiar list is surely at the bottom of it.Pink also said: "That is, the planet wasn't created to be compatible for life, life evolved to be compatible with the planet. This is the prediction of evolution.The very concept behind those 150 criteria is incorrect, they are "probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth" calculations. Do you know what the real probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth is?100%"I am sorry to say that you are wrong here. Dr. Ross, as are many others, is making the point that it is highly improbable we would find ANY planet with these life friendly conditions. To ignore that fact leads to the erroneous conclusion that life is "inevitable". I think the inability of man to produce life in the lab thusfar should be instructive. Life-producing conditions are not a commonality.

JonF replied: "Alas, he is not knowledgable about biology, the theory of evolution, and related fields. What he writes about such things it is, sad to say, hooey and completely untrustworthy."What parts, which articles or books?

Hey Jon, thanks for the reply. So are you saying there may be missing DNA? I am not sure how other humans being present 200,000 years aga affects this study he is sighting in the article you reference.

Unless I am missing something, the study is saying that none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry." quote from the referenced article

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So it is the attempt to date Eve or tie into the biblical story that troubles you. What if we were just to say that, yes there were many human like creatures alive, but this "Eve" was the first to be endowed with a spiritual component? Or maybe dating that event at all is problematic?

But it is a possible conclusion, right?

Exactly!!!

I thought one of the possible conclusions was a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens?

Perhaps the misconception here is in what Dr. Ross is trying to show. He is not saying that this study and many like it prove the Biblical story. He is saying it doesn't contradict it.