Converting raw energy into biological energy

Kuresu:So de novo is the only way to go huh?Because natural selection would require replication and autonomy.And if autonomy and replication are not prerequisites for 'organism' then what is?

jar:Haven't we been here before? Sounds like incredulity to me!Why don't you let the evidence speak for how it got here? How can you presuppose that there is no intelligent design?

I like it!But I'm afraid not...Main Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: "A-"bI-O-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matterIt assumes a material cause before the evidence has spoken...

kuresu: He would create them whole. No evolution needed.

I confess I like it!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Kuresu: Actually, if life was created by God, then it came from God not non-life.

Kuresu: Abiogenesis is also the evolution of life from mere chemicals in the material stance. That is why it is also known as chemical evolution.His marks would be the digital code that is analogous to other systems that are emperically shown to arise from intelligence. The high information content that is specified, non repeating, and extremely complex. We don't see that in the physical laws. They only repeat simple patterns.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Kuresu: It's just what the evidence shows. Irreducibly complex organisms that self assemble based upon a quaternary digital code which contains all of the instructions to build an organism.20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...Kuresu: You have to understand that he is energy (which is matter). And I have the Biblical passages to prove it, but it'd have to be in another thread.

SummationAs I asked and stated upthread (though not so nicely): As Richard Lewontin says plainly, 'Evolution is hopelessly metaphysical'. And he is as staunch an evolutionist and materialist as there is.Kuresu correctly pointed out that 'prebiotic organisms' are a contradiction in terms. Yet in terms of abiogenesis, that is precisely what prebiotic chemists are assuming existed and try to reconstruct as precusors to actual and emperical organisms. They either have to admit de novo formation of life which Orgel concedes would be a near miracle, or speculate on the contradictory notion of self organizational ribozymes that allowed for the natural selection of higher states of order and eventual organisms. But that is precisely what an organism is; a self replicating autonomous cycle. (source / Darwin's Black Box Chapter 8 footnote 5 / Joyce, G.F., and Orgel, L.E. (1993) "Prospects for Understanding the origin of the RNA World" in The RNA world, ed. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, p. 19, 13.)Molbiogirl, in an attempt to show evidence of these modern pre-organisms, referred organisms that use sulfer as a means of respiriation to produce ATP. But whether in the presence of oxygen or not, organisms designed for using sulfer as an electron receptor instead of oxygen, would do so regardless of whether oxygen is present, just as organisms designed to use oxygen as an electron receptor would do so even in the presence of sulfer. Different organisms have different ways to synthesize ATP.The point is... that all of them use ATP as the energy currency, and this poses an vexing problem for prebiotic chemists. The necessity of adenine and the inability to account for it in any biologically plausible or relevant environment, means we must defer to the actual evidence; that these organisms catalyze adenine and other biologically necessary molecules themselves with the help of enzymes that are in turn manufactured from the coding for their sequence in the DNA, which is in turn an energy dependant process needing ATP for it's functioning.The other attempts to solve this problem (that were not addressed in this debate) such as symbiosis and complexity theory have their own immediate problems.Symbiosis for example, actually requires two autonomous self replicating organisms that combine into one modern higher form. But it does not solve the immediate problem of the arrival of the two systems to begin with. It's bad enough a problem with one. Symbiosis also assumes that the systems, as seen in a symbiotic relationship today, have actually lost many of the functions that once made them autonomous. So, as for mitocondria, they would have to have been more complex than the relatively simple form we see today to remain autonomous.Complexity theory is a mathematical construct created by intelligence and is tested exclusively using computer technology that is also created by intelligence. ( Behe / 'Darwins Black Box', pg. 191)It's a chicken and egg paradox folks; we can't have one without the other. To get the molecules necessary for biological life, we need the processes of biological life that catalyze them. And to get biological life, we need the molecules necessary for biological life.The only self replicating processes we see are called organisms. As Joyce and Orgel conceded long ago, the paradox of evolution without self replication leaves the models, postulates, and research for a self replicating robozyme a product of myth. It's de novo or nothing. It's irreducibly complex. Makes me wonder why they keep looking in the same direction since they are so frank about the problems.It is just as Dean Kenyon and Stephen Myer have shown in their most excellent contributions to the video clip you can all watch here: AbiogenesisJust scroll down to the man writing on the chaulkboard and click the play button on the YouTube link. It is clip 5. For the full context you should watch clip 6 which can be acessed in the menu that will pop up when the clip is finished.And for complete context... watch all 7 clips.Publish or Perish?As for the questions of others above as to the explanatory power of Intelligent design and the proofs they offer, we'll have to have another thread. This thread is the search for answers to the theory of abiogenesis with material evidence.And the verdict... there are none.Perish!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

With all due respect to Percy and his worldview...What I have focused on is the known facts and evidence. It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms. Not on the grounds that there is missing evidence; but on the grounds that what evidence there is, points to design.If Percy's arguments were true, he could just as easily say that 'I am trying to prove a negative by saying we have not found the evidence that the pink unicorn created the universe' and that therefore such evidence does not exist.I never said (nor has any intelligent creationist) that there is evidence that some things could never have come about naturally. Clearly the evidence shows that some things do come about naturally. But other evidence also points to design in the field of biology. That evidence belongs in another thread. For those interested in learning more in terms of the evidence for design, you might start here: Abiogenesis The YouTube link of Dean Kenyon near the center of the page is compelling.I never said there is no evidence... I only asked to be given some.Publish or Perish...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

How does evidence debunking the myth of chemical evolution exclude God?All it means is that life appeared fully formed. Or as Orgel said, 'the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle'.Slow down Archer... it's difficult to maintain perspective when we get this deep.Here's the full quote: Did you watch the YouTube link to Dr. Kenyon's illustration? Abiogenesis

No no no Chiroptera... Ringo summarized it far less words than you: Listen to Behe's analogy and the punchline left out by most critics of it: And... this thread is about the search for evidence of prebiotic organisms (a contradiction in terms) and key in that search is an organism that can directly utilize energy without converting it to ATP.Got any?

Chiroptera: And Santa Claus might be real too... after all you can't prve a negative.

Chirotera: No you're not... You're making cliams that were never established. And I will not sit by and let it go unanswered.

Chiroptera: Thank you for agreeing that the point was established. That was the goal of this thread. It will be the purpose of another thread to establish the evidence that is available for design.It was never this thread's purpose to do that. And it is not an argument against this threads goal.One thing at a time Chiroptera... we have established the one... now we can move on to the other.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.