Abiogenisis by the Numbers

In recent years, many people have voiced opposition to the concept of abiogenisis. Among them are prominent materialists, like Francis Crick. William Dembski claims that the odds of a single viable protein molecule forming naturalistically in the course of a billion years are a google to one. I've heard other scientists make such claims of outrageous numbers, even if you idealize the conditions with which first life had to form, such as gathering all the carbon in the universe and putting it in one place. Proponents of abiogenisis question the accuracy of these numbers, claiming that (as in the case of Demski) these numbers are flawed because they don't allow for the potential of fully formed unviable molecules gradually moving toward viability by changing bonds. But these complaints seem hollow since random changes in a protein molecule could as easily move the molecule further away from viability as it could towards it. Another way in which time could actuall work as a destructive force against abiogenisis is seen in the tendancy of amino acids to disolve in water.So, naturalits, without appealing to fact-free hypotheses, can you TRULY invalidate the given numbers? And if the math truly works in favor of abiogenisis, why don't proponents of the theory come up with their own figures to back it?

NosyNed, Behe in Darwin's Black Box refers to Crick as having become exaspirated with the concept of abiogenisis, which is why he's now proposing that our planet was seeded.

Yes, it does........which is why it's a flawed proposition. And it's proposal from a materialist seems to be a desperate ploy to find a materialistic explanation for first life, does it not? I don't see how.This message has been edited by RisenLord, 11-12-2004 06:19 PM

How so? And EVENT is not a BEING. We've proven beyond reasonable doubt that other certain events long ago occured, like the Big Bang and evolution. That's the thing.....abiogenisis advocates DON'T present numbers........only intelligent design advocates do. Seems to be rather unscientific of the former.

As NosyNed and countless others have pointed out, this is a copout. It just pushes the same problem to a different location. It's a desperation move. I don't know enough about biochemistry to define viable......I'd have to imagine that Dembski does, though. 100% speculation. We know what replicators are like NOW, and we have no reason to believe that first life replicated in a way that was so much different from the way life today does it. In fact, we have every reason to believe that it replicated in a related fashion, considering that we ARE, after all, its children. Two things. First, I doubt this is true.......second, such scientists have practically zero experimental evidence (and absolutely no mathematical evidence) to back such claims. We have no reason to believe that first life could have been anything but a more basic version of modern living cells....... Amino acids that have been disolved into entirely seperate atoms can't form any protein....... A cell with the ability to metabolize and replicate. We have no reason to believe that it was anything other than DNA and/or RNA. No, "real" scientists (aka scientists that agree with you) pose wild speculations about life forming from clay in order to avoid the self-evident facts. The only reason you claim we don't know enough about first life to give numbers about the odds of it forming naturalistically is because you ASSUME that first life took place naturalistically, and that proof of a life form which is much more simple than the simplest concievable single-celled life self-assembling will be forthcoming.REAL scientists don't make such assumptions to back their dogma.

But we have very little reason to believe it occured naturalistically....... Math comes first, then empirical evidence. That's the way science works. That's the way it worked for relativity, that's the way it's currently working for string theory....... You'll have to shell out the bucks for one of Dembski's book for specific calculations.......though Dembski and ID proponents in general are known for their meticulous work, and I haven't heard any objections to such numbers that really hold any weight. Perhaps you are correct.....and it is to avoid such objections that ID proponents never make an attempt at giving the odds of a whole animal forming, but just ONE viable molecule.......and why they grant ridiculously favorable circumstances for it forming, such as putting all the carbon in the universe on earth.Even still, the numbers they come up with are ridiculously improbable........ Oh, really? When was the last real break through on the subject? The Miller experiment? In order to maintain a cell structure, first life's cell wall would've had to been formed of proteins.......besides, it isn't like RNA is exactly muck scientists accidently make all the time either. Finally, I've heard that the RNA world idea has lost favor........

Recent? That discovery is a good ten years old now........and really amounts to nothing to get excited over. What progress? "Hey, here's some more goop we found naturally occuring on earth that we find in animals"?

In order to disolve, something has to break down into more basic stuff, correct? Therefore, an amino acid (which is a molecule) would have to break down into seperate atoms.......correct? Thanks!

As I stated in another posts, the only suppostitions they make when coming up with these numbers are ridiculously favorable toward the formation of first life naturalistically.........like, as I said earlier, supposing that all the carbon in the universe was located on earth....... Or maybe they're intentionally being vague in order to cover up lack of evidence......BTW, I believe guys like Mike Behe and Dembski would be suprised to be informed that they're not experts on the subject.......

Behe mentions something about studies along those lines in Darwin's Black Box, which is a good 8 years old now.

Then what do they do when they desolve?

And we've never observed anything happening from its genisis, either. And it led to mathematical conclusions which, at the time, had no evidence to support it....... Physics is hardly narrow......and the reason math plays a greater roll in physics than many other disciplines is because there are many elements related the physics that can't be tested, so you have to depend on the math. Same goes for abiogenisis. Really? Wow. I'm suprised an atheist would make that admission, because killing the validity of string theory surely kills the validity of the only existing theory which can naturalistically explain a habitable universe......... You're right, my mistake.Still, point was, I think everyone can agree that first life was surely more complex than a single protein molecule........ Of course you did. That's the way the chemicals react. And I'm sure this lipid bilayer then filled right up with RNA and started replicating and metabolizing......Oh, wait, that latter part didn't happen, did it? Which is why the cell structure which lipids form isn't any greater evidence for abiogenisis than soap bubbles forming is for it.

That's why I referred to the supposition as ridiculous.......

Still don't.

And no preexisting bonds are broken in the process, I assume........I see. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. What are the implications of these chemical reactions for or against either of our arguments?BTW, that little tidbit about amino acids was just a side note, nothing to do with my real argument.