Abiogenesis

false. we have several hypotheses. as to odds:
no, they wouldn't. quite frankly, I don't even think he's using "language" right. If anything, the language would be the nitrogenous bases--A,C,T,G. not the human enzyme or genome (and if he did mean those, then the lengths become very important, and it's much easier to build something small than large, and an enzyme is small).Furthermore, and enzyme isn't DNA. it is the product (now, at any rate), of translating the DNA.as to the in-between:
there's a huge mistake he's making. if I understand it right, he's actually arguing about the mathematical imposssibility of humans arising. problem is, we're here. so obviously we are possible.it also then seems like he's using a "chance alone" argument. we are not the result of chance alone. we are the result of random mutations (which is chance) and our environment (which is where natural selection comes in, and the non-chance part of ToE). It also seems like he's saying evolution is goal-oriented (as in, humans specifically are a goal). not too sure about that. if he is, that's bunk too, because evolution isn't driven to meet pre-defined goals (such as creating humans or pigs).he's also arguing about the impossibility of our specific genome (i think, that word enzyme has me confused). problem is, you can make a ton of single base mutations without affecting the function of proteins. this is because each amino acid (which makes up proteins) has 3 (i think) variations for the base sequence. the earliest evidence we have for life is from rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old. Also, we know the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. now, you might say "couldn't the evidence have been destroyed"? you'd have a good point. evidence however, also suggests that the really early earth was essentially a molten ball and went through multiple impacts--one of which gave us our moon (hypothesis there) and our iron core.all the models of abiogenesis we have need a relatively stable environment (that I'm aware of), and those massive impacts don't help that. also, being a molten ball is not exactly conducive to the creation of complex chemicals (that I'm aware of). so we have evidence of really early life, and evidence of really early earth-conditions that make life impossible. And I don't think anyone is seriously going to suggest that life was started when the earth was forming.

HM:I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong 'about how it happend'. I am only reminding them they don't know how it happened and pointing out some flaws in their assumptions about the superiority of their worldview in regard to this subject.They think nature did it...I think nature did it too, but a much larger nature than the empericist cares to imagine.I just think we are incredibly arrogant to think that we as finite creatures can comprehend what is ultimately infinite and eternal (whether physical or metaphysical), without embracing the concept of the infinite and the eternal. It's disregarding too much of the story. It's reductionist as well as deconstructionist.HM: Thanks, but honestly HM... a couple of those times I really did need a slap down. I am supposed to be the model of humilty. I've thought alot about it, and not only was my last suspension justified, but I think I had better just accept the double standard.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Kuresu:Isn't that what Ringo affectionately calls a non sequtior?It is also known as what you called 'a weak argument' based on incredulity.I don't think it's weak. It's all we have to go on. We are here!Who we are is another issue...I think I've said all I can on this subject. You must believe what you think is right. There are so many assumptions in your response that I question, like the age of rocks for instance. And your 'chance alone thing' is ripe for unraveling.Just no point in getting into it all now...G'night.

I read over your source. It is not the orginal source of the probability calculations.Since they are central to your argument in that post it is you that have to supply the calculations. When you've done that we will enjoy taking them to little tiny quivering pieces.I suspect though that you will duck on this. You brought it up because it sound soooo scientific but you have no idea what is involved and will drop it without admitting that it is meaningless.

false on both accounts. First, a non sequiter is:
a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously saidyour quote was arguing about the impossibility of the human genome arising. it is very relevant to argue that that argument is bunk because quite frankly, here we are.my response is also not an argument of incredulity, which is:
a statement based off of the inability to think something possible, esp. when it has been shown to be possible.how is my argument one of incredulity? it isn't. actually, it's not my argument. that was the argument put forward by your quote (as best I could understand it). I already unraveled it.And there are very few assumptions in my thread. you want to talk about rocks? go to RAZD's thread on the age of the earth (add link later). In fact, I just re-read my post. The only assumption I can find is my statement about people suggesting that life started at the same time the earth was forming (that they wouldn't). Of course, you might be able to include my bit about key chemicals for life not being able to survive, but that's merely because of my unfamiliarity with those chemicals and where they can survive. my assumption is that they wouldn't--the extreme heat would break apart the bonds of those chemicals i think (i know that proteins will unfold permanently if heated to specific temperatures. there are none that i'm aware of that could survive where the temperature is well above boiling).if I have any assumptions that are pertainent to abiogenesis, discuss them here. age of rocks is not.ABE:
i forgot about creatures living in deep sea vents, where the water is 400 degress celcius (750ish farenhiet). funny thing though--no boiling due to pressure. my question is, are there any models of abiogenesis occurring at these vents?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

To this point I would add a thought. In Thomas Gold’s “deep, hot biosphere theory”, he argues that abiogenesis, if it occurred on Earth, probably happened deep below the surface where temperatures are very high. But the pressures are high, too, increasing the boilling point of water. I will not belabor the details of Gold’s theory (check out the link), but I will point out that his ideas at first seemed preposterous to me, and then after reading his 1999 book The Deep Hot Biosphere I got hooked on them. (One of his sub-theories is that most of the world’s petroleum reserves do not have biogenetic origins, but instead arose from deeper sources that contain PAH and other hydrocarbon remnants of Earth's accretive and prebioic history.)”HM

Interesting enough, water never boils above its critical point pressure which is somewhere around 220 atmosphere (If I remember it right). (That's about 2200 meters below sea level.)

I thought you were questioning the 'source' of the source and that he was taking the quote out of context. And I thought your elusion to his credibility was in reference to an Oscar Wilde quote.There was nothing central about that quote to my argument. I was bringging in additional ammo...but let's suppose that it is bankrupt for the sake of argument... My point still stands. And so that you do not succeed in assasinating my character, I will re-establish what that point was and is, and the context in which it was given hearing.Irrespective of maleable calculations (for and against), it is based upon simple and reasonable observation of complexity.

Your right Kuresu... I am sorry for bothering you.

Your right Kuresu... I am sorry for bothering you.

when I last asked you what this had to do with abiogensis, you actually dodged the question by answering that hoot mon had brought up a relevant point--that of the nature of the information.that did not answer the question of what this complexity has to do with abiogenesis.something with 2 parts I'd call simple. 4 parts is still simple, but more complex than something with 2 parts. something with 10 parts is beginning to get quite complex. but how does this work against how abiogenesis happened?and just what is your point? you quoted a good chunk of that discussion, but there's nary a point I can discern--except for a question about how complex A,T,C,G are compared to 1,0.

You were talking about (IIRC) the origin of life (which is what this thread is about). You offered probability calculations as support for the idea that it needed some extra help to get started.You are now dropping those calculations as unsupported (and unsupportable)? Good. Done with that then.Now you are talking about an undefined thing called "complexity". You use words like "more" suggesting a quantification of this thing. The discussion can't progress much on that without defining what you mean. Could you give a definition and a way to measure this thing?You suggest that the large number of patterns in DNA is some hint of this thing called complexity. By now you should understand that we have a mechanism that can create these patterns and embellish them in a very large number of ways. That suggests that whatever you complexity thing is that it isn't a problem for evolutionary processes. However all that is not concerned with abiogenesis.Can you tie this back to abiogenesis?

Nosy:We have a mechanism that can create? Starting with what?I think your talking about producing a copy of somthing already existing.Reproduction is not creation...Abiogenesis is about explaining the original so as to eliminate intelligence as a necessary means to explain it.

no. no. no. that is not what abiogenesis is about.
the goal of any theory of abiogenesis is to explain how abiogenesis happened.if you can prove that intelligence had to be behind it, you still have to explain how that intelligent agent did it. it isn't? so I take it that you're not a creation? you are, after all, the result of reproduction. a better word to use would be replication. and take out creation, because you can create copies. copies are created. i think you mean to say:
"replication is not creating the original"

Yes it is...