|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenisis by the Numbers | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The first part of your post was sweet but the second part didn't have to be added. No, I think it did. I see absolutely no evidence that RisenLord has bothered to aquaint himself with the science he's so casually dismissing, or that he even feels it's necessary. Instead, he'd rather speculate on the motives of scientists, when, to all evidence, he's completely incapable of understanding how scientists go about their jobs. I'll continue in the same vein until RisenLord's actions make it clear that, like the rest of us, he's here to reduce ignorance, not offer misapprehension as fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Not correct. Amino acids, sugars, and a very large array of other smallish biomolecules dissolve in water with no bonds broken at all. Then what do they do when they desolve?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
In those cases, their hydrogen atoms hydrogen-bond to water molecules, and their nitrogen and/or oxygens form hydrogen bonds with hydrogens on other water molecules.
Oh, and the carbon currently in the Sun amounts to about 109 earth-masses. Lessee, times 10^11 solar masses in our galaxy alone, times.... And Crash, I doubt there's any need for either you or I to be tacky with our new friend. He/she is rapidly weaving the web that he/she will soon be trapped in, and doesn't appear to even need any help doing it. This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-12-2004 10:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Well, aside from the fact that the only way we've ever observed anything happening is "naturalistically." And we've never observed anything happening from its genisis, either.
That's not the way it worked for relativity. Relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations, which themselves were derived from observations stemming from the Michelson-Morley experiment. And it led to mathematical conclusions which, at the time, had no evidence to support it.......
As for string theory, hopefully it isn't lost on you that you've given two examples from one narrow discipline 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.
and the other of which is not even science. There are absolutely no observations that support string theory, and very likely, there are absolutely no observations that could ever be made. 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.........
Cell walls aren't made out of proteins. They're made out of lipids. 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........
Did you perhaps think that it might have behooved you to aquaint yourself with basic cellular components such as the lipid bilayer, which, incedentally, we've managed to create through totally inorganic and "naturalistic" processes? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Where did you get that bizarre factoid? I'll bet a 30-pack of Keystone Light against a single bottle of Guiness that there's enough carbon in the sun alone to equal the mass of the entire Earth. Anyone know the carbon abundance of ol' Sol off the top of their head? That's why I referred to the supposition as ridiculous.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
But I'll repeat the bet that he doesn't mention carbonyl sulfide, and again that you didn't know carbonyl sulfide's chemical formula prior to today. Still don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Oh, really? When was the last real break through on the subject? The Miller experiment?
Are you getting all your info from Answers in Genesis, or something even worse? Miller is still active in the field, and his group is still making discoveries! There have been several "breakthroughs", including the COS reaction I mentioned above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
In those cases, their hydrogen atoms hydrogen-bond to water molecules, and their nitrogen and/or oxygens form hydrogen bonds with hydrogens on other water molecules. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Are you getting all your info from Answers in Genesis, or something even worse? Miller is still active in the field, and his group is still making discoveries! There have been several "breakthroughs", including the COS reaction I mentioned above. Like I said earlier, if these breakthroughs fall under the category of "hey, we found some more goop that we also find in cells", I hardly regard that as a breakthrough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And we've never observed anything happening from its genisis, either. I totally don't understand what you mean in this sentence. "Genisis"? You mean "genesis"? Or "Genus"?
And it led to mathematical conclusions which, at the time, had no evidence to support it....... No, actually, there were a number of bizarre observations that relativity immediatly explained, such as the procession of Mercury's orbit.
Same goes for abiogenisis. Um, no. When we come to conclusions about abiogenesis, its because of the evidence of observation and experiment, not from mathematics.
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......... There are a number of competeing theories besides String Theory that purport to account for the initial conditions of the Big Bang. And you appear to have misunderstood my point. I didn't say that string theory was wrong. In fact, that's why it currently isn't really a theory at all; there's no way to know if it's wrong. We have a truckload of competiting theories that explain why there was a Big Bang; the problem isn't that none of them are right, it's that we don't know which ones are wrong.
Still, point was, I think everyone can agree that first life was surely more complex than a single protein molecule...... Without a very, very clear idea of what you mean by "living thing", I don't think we can agree on that at all. To me, "life" merely describes a certain kind of chemistry. A single protein molecule could easily manage the chemical reactions necessary to be considered, if not alive, then a precursor to life. The origin of life is, ultimately, a question of chemistry, not biology. No matter where you draw the line, historically, between living and non-living, you'll find that living thing decended from the interactions of previously-existing complex molecules. Where did those complex molecules come from? Through non-living, but complex, chemistry building on simpler molecules. Another way to define life might be to define it as those things upon which evolution acts. Again, a single population of protein molecules, each catalyzing formation of copies of themselves from naturally-occuring polypeptides, could be considered living - it could certainly evolve.
And I'm sure this lipid bilayer then filled right up with RNA and started replicating and metabolizing...... As a matter of fact, they almost immediately started performing complex chemical interactions in budded-off vescicles; interactions that could not occur in the surrounding matrix, interactions that led to an expansion and bifurcation of these bilayer membranes. So, yes, they did start replicating and metabolizing.
Which is why the cell structure which lipids form isn't any greater evidence for abiogenisis than soap bubbles forming is for it. Of course, the biggest difference between lipid bilayer membranes and soap bubbles is that bilayer membranes are self-assembling, like the organelles of the cells of living things. Soap bubbles are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6043 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
there are many elements related the physics that can't be tested, so you have to depend on the math. Same goes for abiogenisis. Not when you are talking about probabilities. You need some knowledge about conditions and complexity to start talking probabilities. However, the ID camp often looks at the composition of a single living cell today and tries to come up with a simple probability of it forming randomly. Since the "first life" was likely not a fully intact "modern" cell, probabilities calculated based on that assumption are pointless strawmen. No one on the chemical abiogenesis side is arguing spontaneous generation of a complete cell.
I think everyone can agree that first life was surely more complex than a single protein molecule........ I don't agree with that at all, mainly because I don't think the first life needed any protein at all. The interesting thing about RNA is that it can act as a genetic template, and it can have catalytic activity like protein enzymes (including acting as a polymerase to replicate RNA). Since it is an imperfectly replicating template, mutation and selection can act upon it increase its stability and activity (survival). RNA strands also form from strictly chemical processes. Because of these characteristics, short RNA replicators seem the most likely "first life". Later association with lipid micelles would have created the first cell. When the complexity of the first life drops from an intact, protein-synthesizing cell to a short RNA strand, so does the probability of first life forming._____________ Edited to add: Here is an online article that goes into specific calculations and much greater detail regardng the above, as well as providing references: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 11-13-2004 02:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
RisenLord writes:
I'm sorry, but what a load of poop you were able to crap out there. Amazing how the ego of such people are getting bigger and bigger every time. 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.......
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
And you'll take Behe's word on it over what Crick himself has actually said?
From what I have read Crick's objections were more along the lines that he felt some the particular elements used by cells were found in proportions which suggested an extraterrestrial origin, but as the quote I presented from 'Life itself' states he was quite open to the possibility that the specific microenvironment in which life arose may have had such proportions. In fact the element I have seen talked about most in this respect is molybdenum, rather than similar and generally more abundant elements such as nickel and cadmium ,being being so biologically important. This may be explained by the higher levels of abundance of molybdenum in seawater. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You must be joking. Firstly it is up to YOU to support your claim that the probability is too low. You can't copmplain that nobody has offered any argument against the specific claims when you won't even present the details for examination. Secondly Dembski is NOT known for "meticulous work". Just the opposite - his attempt to apply his own methods to a bacterial flagellum in No Free Lunch was a complete disaster. I'm not aware of ANY complex probability calculations from Behe but he's already suggested replacing his definition of "irreducible complexity" with a completely different one because the original version wasn't as good at ruling out evolution as he thought. Hardly what we would expect from a meticulous worker. The way you've set up this argument is that the calcullations you CLAIM exist have been placed beyond criticism. YOu want us to just accept your word for it. You don't place the work on the line for examination on criticism. On the other hand that is exactly what you demand from us. Since there aren't ANY valid calculations it pretty much guarantees that you will "win". That is neither scientific nor honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6487 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
REAL scientists don't make such assumptions to back their dogma. I agree, Risenlord. That's the reason creationism cannot be considered science. Creationism assumes the existence of a creator, which is an inherently unprovable assertion. A creationist looks at evidence and says, "Okay, we know god created everything. How does this fit?" Science looks at evidence and says, "What does this tell us?" Which is making assumptions to support dogma?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024