Abiogenesis

Hi, LFH, I live just a bit north of you. Welcome to our den of iniquity. There's lots to learn here.I suggest that before you post too much more you recognize that you don't know much about some of the subjects here. If you pick the right threads to read and ask questions before making pronouncements about what can and can not happen you have an opportunity to learn something.

How on earth could you get what you said from DrA's definition? I'd like to see a detailed explanation. As it is this little exchange explains why it is impossible to talk with you. You can't read.Edited by NosyNed, : fix db codes

1) Artifical does not mean forgery. Especially in this context. It means exactly what the definition says. Formed by an intelligent process. It comes from the same root as artifact.If you think our intelligence was created by an intelligent process then I guess we are 'artifacts' too. But that is something you might be sayingWhat DrA said does NOT logically lead to that conclusion. It is not a consequence of "Artificial: created by intelligent process".What you said was like"
Fingerpaintings: created by children under 5Therefor you would conclude that children under 5 are finger paintings. More nonsense.You've confirmed my understanding that attempting to talk to you in English is a waste of time.Edited by NosyNed, : corrected serious grammer error

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.

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.

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.

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?

There is no restriction on you to bring up motivations. You just can't bring them up as red herrings in all the threads you participate in.If you really want to focus discussion on motivations please write an OP to that effect. Meanwhile we all invite you to keep it out of other topics since you have never shown how it invalidates anything at all.

Why, Rob, would you repost something saying that both sides have no clue when it was pointed out to hoot (you before edit) that one side does, in fact, have a rather large number of clues?Did it slip your mind already?(ps sorry about the original mistake in attribution)Edited by NosyNed, : To correct a mistake in attribution.

The difference is a number of clues to zero for the other side. Abiogenesis doesn't have to produce anything like a microbe so that is a classic non-sequiter. What it might need to produce we have examples of in the lab. Chemistry on the score board ->> goddidit - zero.

The original statement that you (I think it was, I tend to forget these things ) made was that neither side has a clue.We all (I think) agree that the details (and even bigger parts) of abiogensis are unknown. (In fact some would agree that they may be always unknown if a high degree of certainty is wanted).However you said there was no clue. I say there are clues. One clue is that we can get self replicators from very simple chemisty (simple compared to a microbe). That doesn't guarentee that it wasn't a microbe but we all have already agreed that a modern 'microbe' is an unlikely first step. If imperfect self replicators can form it is also an unnecessary first step.From the chemistry and biology we have uncovered in the last decade or so we have a clue that there probably doesn't have to be a "magic temperature". A wider range of temperatures than found in a "warm pond" would probably work.If it required any of "stirring, mixing, shaking, boiling, freezing, evaporation, or precipitation" it isn't unreasonable to expect those to happen a lot in a couple of hundred million years so I don't know why you would ask the question.By definition, (well, to the degree that we can agree on a definition of life) it had to intiate heritable properties so that isn't a useful question is it?To remind you again: You didn't say neither side had any complete, certain answers. You said neither side has a clue. I agree one side hasn't a clue. The other has been finding clues, especially over the last decade and some.

Only if they are demonstrated to have some relationship to life on earth. If not it will reduce the bets on panspermia.(I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to why that might be.)

This exemplifies the differences in ways of thinking that you and I have.You don't like a particular possible conclusion so you decide it is incredible.I don't know if the conclusion is correct or not. My reaction, and the only thinking one is:
What "compelling reasons" is he talking about? I don't know if the reasons will be compelling to me or not but until I look at them I stay right where I am now. His suggestion is one of two possible positions. I'd like to know how well he can support it.You sure are attaching a lot to the abiogenesis question. Maybe it is a good strategy since we all figure it is a tough one to nail down. However, it is just another god of the gaps game. If the gap closes where will you hide your smaller and smaller god next time?Edited by NosyNed, : lost letter again.

Why did you bring molecular biology up? We are talking about prebiotic chemisry in this thread. We can't have biology until we have life.You are looking for something you call "unknown principles"? What the hay are they?What you seem to be doing now is suggesting that you god will be resplendently proved by science when we know more. Bad strategy. So far every time we learn more another gap closes. God is no longer the explanation for lightening, volcanoes, disease (though in another thread there is a hint that there are preaching fools out there who ascribe mental disease to demons), stars and planets or the nature of living things on this planet.Now you want this god to be the explanation for the origin of life from chemicals? Why?In addition, you've now backed off any real disagreement with any research into abiogenesis and are waving your hands in the air saying "Just you wait! Any day now! Something will be discoverd that will prove me right. " We'll await your "unknown prinicples" without holding our breath.Sounds like an echo of the creationist arguments against evolution. For a century it's been any day now. That's about the only thing with a worse track record than economical fusion plants.

Oh really? Prove it then. Genes are after all just chemicals.