Abiogenesis

Kuresu:My apologies Kuresus for the cynicism dripping from the words of my post you have so brought to this table. I will endeavor to discuss the matter without prejudice.I would like to defer to a man who worked in the field of abiogenesis for many years before that 'term' was coined . He spent time at NASA Ames Research Center (among many other labs) in search of the evidence for his and his co-author's own textbook on the subject.I understand what he is saying; part of which, is a refutation of the often promoted idea, that 'abiogenesis' is not the same thing as evolution, or more specifically, 'natural selection'. It is all based upon cause and effect within the natural laws. It is ultimately the very same thing, only on another level (or dimension) of scale.He makes it clear, that 'abiogenesis' is equal to 'biochemical predestination' (or chemical evolution). And he explains very openly why he ultimately rejected the idea. At another point in the same source he says, "It just reached the intellectual breaking point sometime durring the end of the decade of the seventies".Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution, ”Biochemical Predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State UniversityKenyon on ”describing the complexity of a living cell’ [and the problems assopciated with the concept of abiogenesis]. (Source: Q&A Section of the DVD Documentary / 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [emphasis added])

Kuresu:Take it easy there Pilgrim...The book you are talking about is a textbook on the subject of Abiogenesis. In it, Kenyon and Gary Steinman posited the theory that life was biochemically predestined by nothing more than chemical laws.It is Kenyon himself who gave up the idea because of the enormous complexities found since then. So it is Kenyon who, based on the current knowledge you are speaking of to this day, refutes the concept of Abiogeneisis.I think the basic concept is this (but this is my understanding and not Kenyon's per se):
The more complex the system, the less attributable by chance it can be. With biology, we have the most complex system in the known universe without peer. Not to mention it is sitting in a system which it is dependant upon to exist. In fact we have layer upon layer of systems from the atomic to the galactic. Are any of them unnecessary for life?Probabilities being what they are, all of that is based upon what we do know. Perhaps new evidence will come in, is that what you are looking for?Do you wish to refute these ideas, or is this thread only looking for pro-evidence of abiogenesis?All I did... was show that Kenyon (who was not a 'biased and devious prejudicial Christian like me' at the time of his rejection of abiogenesis. And may still not be... I don't know) rejected his own theory because of the new knowledge you are talking about.And as biology shows itself to be more and more complex (not less) the problem for abiogenesis only gets worse Kuresu... not better.In my opinion (as valueless as it may be to you and the other 'optimists') all the new evidence works against abiogenesis, not for it. Optimism abounds yes... but imagination is not equal to reality.Reality has no equal...
As C.S. Lewis said somewhere, 'we could never have thought of it'. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Thor:Kenyon put forth the notion that amino acids are attracted to each other by mere natural laws. What he actually found durring the testing of this theory, was that amino acids do not have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences. So neither He, nor I, am sugessting that it is not posible. All we can say is that the conditions and laws needed for abiogenesis have never been observed.There is another rub that is often overlooked. The scientists who are manipulating matter and supposed conditions in the lab, are by definition 'intelligent agents'. If they are able to produce some burnt slime after zapping a chemical soup (while making massive and unverifiable assumptions about theoretical atmospheric conditions on the early earth), can they really say that 'such an experiment proves that it is possible without intelligent guidance'?As for it being too simple. It is simple Thor. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is a totally faith based concept. Kenyon proposed a theory on how it might have occured. He was a very ambitious 'evolutionary biologist'. Turned out he was wrong. At least he has the gumption to admit it.Complexitiy does not mean abiogenesis is not possible. I only ask for you to show me how it is?Let me ask you this... Could an automobile have evolved without intelligent agents designing it? It is nowhere near as complex as biology. In fact it's parts can be reduced very easily. I've done a little wrenching on cars in my day. You don't need a degree in medicine. All man made things break down into simpler and simpler parts. God's creation only get's more complex as we look deeper into the layers of dependancy within the system.So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is natural, then why do we so with life?Forget theory and inuendo... where are the laws and evidence to explain these things with the observations we do have?Do they exist?

jar:Are you implying very cleverly that it would be incredulous to think otherwise?So... let me get this straight...You are also saying that Kenyons arguments are not credible because they are mere incredulity in the final assesment.Thanks jar! I needed that today...

Dr.A:But we would conclude that the old car came into being supernaturally. And rightly so...I think one trap we too often fall into is thinking of the supernatural as 'unnatural'. That is not what supernatural means. Just like something super-rational (like the scriptures) is not 'irrational'.The only difference between the natural and unnatural for the context of this argument is 'mind' or 'intelligence'.I suspect we will not even be able to agree upon that...The equivilant comparison is mindlessness (randomness or chaos) vs. intelligence (order and harmony).Those are the terms I am speaking in when I say supernatural vs natural. Random events do not give you order...Kuresu, agreed or not, are you listening?

jar:That's called deferring to common sense... but who's common sense?Bertrand Russel used the same argument when asked to explain the origin of the universe. "It's just there!", He said...Well, why can't I say that about God? He's just there!"Your double standards are mezmerizing...jar:Ok fine!It is obvious life is here... I'll agree with you there. How it came into being is another matter. Was it intelligently guided or not?You said in one of your replies that you believe God created all of it. So is that not an intelligent design irrespective of any deficiencies you may perceive in the system?Seems to me that the issue is one of how life came into being. You also indicated this same idea.If we agree on that, then however God God created life, it is not unnatural but supernatural. And it is only supernatural relative to our current understanding. The real solution supercedes our current understanding.What intrigues me, is that the more we know, the more incredible it becomes. The more awesome and miraculous it appears even if we do understand it more.

Dr. A:Intelligence is artificial? I don't know about that, but it kinda confirms my point that human life is very unusual (almost alien) to the rest of the creation. There is something very unique about us.We're supernatural! But here we are...But this is encouraging. you're saying that words do have an objective meaning and that I cannot interpret by what they mean to me?Websters:Artificial 1: produced by art rather than nature; also : made by humans to immitate nature 2 : not genuine : FEIGNEDSo 'man-made' is artificial. How bout God-made? God, who is the supernature (the canvass upon all else hangs.Dr.A:Who said that we were intelligent?You are however paying a compliment to order and harmony with your statement.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

NosyNed:I could just as easily say the same with some of you. The fact is all of us can read. It is frustrating though. At least we agree upon that. We are speaking different languages conceptually (or spiritually) IMO. That aside, let me explain...Dr.A.:How else should I interpret this definition?If that which is 'artificial' (forgery) is created by intelligence, then that which is real (not artificial) must arrive from unintelligent processes.So, this definition is actually defining intelligence as phony.Now in the biblical sense this is true of you and I. But man's intelligence is not God's. God's intelligence is not artificial.You may not agree, and it is certainly now veering way off the topic. But that is where I am coming from. How we can communicate with such a different ontic referent for our assum

jar:Is that the only evidence you are looking for?Do you expect that unnatural methods would be involved?Seems to me that God's actions would be the 'most-natural' thing. And it would be super...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Websters Definition / Artificial 2 : not genuine : feignedDr.A.: Now that is precisely what I intend to find out in another thread.Ok Ok... seriously... I know this is geting very muddled and I apologize for the mess.You missed my point thanks to my poor conversion of word to concept. Let me try again.Dr.A.:Ok, so that which is unmanufactured is genuine?If so, does the convention manufacture artificial or genuine language with their so-called intelligence?Dr.A.:I disagree in kind.I may be unable to communicate with the convention, and crucified for standing up to its manufacturing of truth.I stand for the genuine article Himself.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Fallacycop:No... If you go back you will see my listing of this definition previously.But I think Kuresus is right. This has gotten far away from the original topic. I don't even remember how we got to this point. I'll have to re-read.My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Kuresu:I agree...Even so, jar has already culminated the entire subject into a neat little package. It is better known as an A Priori assumption that since life is now here, we know abiogenesis happened.If you are looking for evidence, I am with you. I am waiting.

Kuresu:The A Priori assumption is that it happened and can be explaned in purely material terms.

Asgara:Please explain...

I do!Proceed with your point...