Topic Revival - it seems this is a good place to discuss Abiogenesis
The last post on this thread is almost 3 years old, but the topic endures, due to misunderstanding of what abiogenesis is and how it is possible.
The initial statement, the range of possibilities:
Message 1: There is obviously a lot of speculation about abiogenesis. Particularly in the area of SETI, there is a lot of discussion about the likeliness of the development of life, what kind of life it would (have to) be etc. I'm sure opinions vary from life being extremely rare (or even just one, earth-based instance), and being exclusively carbon and DNA-based, to views that favour life as being almost an essential/inevitable product of the Universe under reasonable circumstances, and available in many chemical makeups and many hereditary/reproductive mechanisms.
In general, I have always held the view that both extremes could still well turn out to be true, because we simply lack substantial evidence or strong indications for either. (life on earth as one single datapoint, so to speak)
However, lately I'm starting to lean towards the "extremely rare" hypothesis, or alternatively the assumption that, even if life is abundant, it would still very likely be based on very similar chemistry (carbon and/or DNA or something very very similar). With a preference for the "extremely rare" hypothesis.
and the typical creationist rejoinder:
Message 28: The vast complexity of a single cell and the nature of chemistry makes abiogenesis simply impossible. Message 30And my reasoning is............................................. Irreducible Complexity
Message 28: Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
Message 37: Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.
Message 42: Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.
Message 1: I think it is wrong to teach evolution, abiogenisis and big bang as facts in school. ... Abiogenisis and Big Bang should really not be taught in science class rooms at all. I mean mostly because the odds for that happening are so immensely low that it will never happen. But students will get to study the different variations of abiogenisis and the big bang hypothesis and then later on decide if its even worth considering.
Message 4: Abiogenisis should not be taught as all. Even as it is mathematicly compleatly impossibel scientist still believes in it.
So let's talk about abiogenesis.
First a definition of the term as used in science:
quote:In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.
The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]
On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
Abiogenesis is the process where life develops from chemicals.
Message 42: Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.
This is obviously false, because (1) abiogenesis occurred before there were cells, and (2) cells don't alter themselves.
The question is whether Doubletime's assertion that abiogenesis is "mathematicly compleatly impossibel" is based on this false definition (straw man) of abiogenesis, or whether he actually has any calculations.
Behe`s nonsense has been thoroughly debunked on numerous sites. Try Talk Origins or Panda`s Thumb for openers.
So, far no sites has been able to prove that life is not irreduicible complex. The good proof must be to produced a bacteria flaggelum wih out a flaggela. And the site you are talking about has been debunked by intelligent design site.
You're making provocative and more importantly unsupported statements. I'm curious about what you mean regarding the genetic code not being universal. Where's your support on that? "Bluffing," indeed.
So, far no sites has been able to prove that life is not irreduicible complex.
So?
No one says that many parts of living things are not irreducibly complex. You seem to have a problem understanding the definition.
If some complex thing (or component of a larger thing) ceases to function with the removal of a part then it is IC. That is it.
The issue was whether or not such a thing could evolve.
Behe and others took a deliberately partial, incorrect description of how evolution can unfold to say that IC things can not evolve.
They have been conclusively shown to be wrong.
They choose to consider only one overly simplified path for evolutionary changes to take place. They, for example, neglected the idea that an IC component can end up evolving by the removal of pieces and also by the co opting of something with another use.
These things can occur so any statement that an IC component can't evolve that ignores them is based on a false premise.
So, far no sites has been able to prove that life is not irreduicible complex.
And yet it has been demonstrated that (a) IC is a prediction of evolution, and (b) it has been observed to evolve.
What IDists have failed to do is demonstrate that IC cannot be due to evolution.
The good proof ...
There is no proof in science, all we end up with are tentative working concepts that appear to represent reality.
What we can have is disproof - invalidation of false concepts. So far IDists have failed to invalidate a single element in evolutionary biology. Of course the major reason is that they don't do science, so they aren't even trying.
... produced a bacteria flaggelum wih out a flaggela.
This is a silly request, as it has nothing to do with whether evolution is valid or not - because you can't make things evolve.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, which curiously, is the topic of the thread.
And the site you are talking about has been debunked by intelligent design site.
Sorry, but IDists have yet to debunk anything. All they have done is provide an argument that you find compelling, whether it is true or not.
Debunking means showing that a concept is invalidated by evidence that contradicts it.
Example:
concept (A) is that IC is an indicator of ID because such systems cannot evolve.
debunk (B) is the fact that IC has been seen to evolve.
In the case of abiogenesis we can see many of the building blocks readily available on a primal earth, and the steps necessary to produce of simple system of replication and containment by naturally occurring processes is getting closer to reality every year. Once you have a replicating system capable of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation you have, imho, the minimal essence of life.
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
You're making provocative and more importantly unsupported statements
Im not, you are.
I'm curious about what you mean regarding the genetic code not being universal. Where's your support on that? "Bluffing," indeed.
Its not my problem if you dont know what universal is. It's your job to check what I say. The evidence is mounting that the genetic code is not universal,unless you are uninformed like razd. Yeah, the critics of Behe's work are just bluffing, they are unable to produced a bacteria flagellum without a flaggela.
And yet it has been demonstrated that (a) IC is a prediction of evolution, and (b) it has been observed to evolve
My reply is a very long,eeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkk. . Evolution is a gradual addition of parts not sudden appearance of parts. Therefore we can say that IC is againts the prediction of evolution.
What IDists have failed to do is demonstrate that IC cannot be due to evolution
Behe, Dembski and many other scientist already demonstrated it. I still have class.
Behe, Dembski and many other scientist already demonstrated it.
Behe, Dembski and other creationists who happen also to be scientists have a problem:
They can either 1) follow the scientific method, or 2) adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible. Many scientists can separate these two, but creation "scientists" appear unable to do so.
Here is an example:
The Institute for Creation Research has the following on their website!
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
Now, do you see any science there? Or do you see an overriding religious dogma?
So tell me, does someone who subscribes to those "Tenets of Scientific Creationism" follow the scientific method or the bible? What are they required to do if the two conflict?
I contend that these ardent creationists are not scientists at all--and cannot be--though they may use the term "creation science" in an effort to gain credibility. They in fact are creationists first and scientists only when there are no conflicts between their religious beliefs and science.
Because of this, why should any scientists trust anything they claim regarding science?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
So people can study my previous message 40. Not a intelligent design topic. Not a biological evolution topic.
The forum is "Origin of Life" and the topic theme is "abiogenesis".
If your message does not deal will and focus on such, then it's off-topic and possibly garbage.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit:
I've just put "OFF-TOPIC" banners on most of the messages posted to this topic this year. That is NOT to say that many of the earlier messages were not also off-topic. When this topic reopens, stray from the topic theme at your own considerable peril.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : The red stuff above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Modify subtitle.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
™ Version 4.2
