Atheistforums.com

Science Section => Science General Discussion => Topic started by: challengeatheism on January 03, 2017, 08:12:02 PM

Title: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 03, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The origin of life emerged as a scientific problem with Louis Pasteur’s demonstration of the apparent implausibility of spontaneous generation of life forms. By an uncanny coincidence, the experiment was reported in 1859, the same year Darwin published The Origin of Species, which among other seminal ideas, included the proposition on LUCA.

The origin of life was either due to:
a) unguided, random, aleatorial chemical reactions
b) physical necessity
c) creation through  a intelligent agency

Unguided coincidental chemical reactions have not the creative action to make the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity.
Chemical reactions and bonds can show bonding preference of one substrate to the other, but that does not explain the specific instructional arrangement of nucleotides.
Evolution is not a driving force prior to DNA replication. Intelligent design remains therefore the best explanation as causal agent of the origin of life. 

Cells are irreducibly complex, and store huge amounts of information, which is a hallmark of intelligent design. The origin of life is therefore best explained through the creative action of a intelligent designer.

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

If we consider as the most complex machine ever built by man, and take as parameter :

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-complex-machine-ever-built-by-mankind

then the Large Hadron Collider is the most expensive and complex scientific machine ever built. It took  10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.

As another example, the Airbus A380. Huge airliners are incredibly complex. The A380 has about 4 million parts, with 2.5 million part numbers  produced by 1,500 companies from 30 countries around the world,  including 800 companies from the United States.

compared to this, the most simple cell is still far far more complex. This lead Michael Denton to write in  Evolution: A Theory In Crisis :

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”

…veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

Advocates of naturalism often try to sidestep and state either that a) evolution explains the feat, or b) " we don't know yet how life emerged, but one day science will know ", as if natural mechanisms would explain life's origin, no matter what. Thats a classic example of " evolution of the gaps ". We don't know yet, therefore evolution.

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.

DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Would you  say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ?
Would you  say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ?

Paul Davies puts it more graphically: ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’

The cell is like a factory, that has various computer like hierarchically organized systems of  hardware and software, various language based  informational systems, a translation system, hudge amounts of precise instructional/specified, complex information stored and extract systems to make all parts needed to produce the factory and replicate itself, the scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form and size of its building, walls with  gates that permits  cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, "employees", busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts  with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, on the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time,   which has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process, the hability to compare correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discard the faulty ones, and repeat the process to make the correct ones;  highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where  to drop the cargo where its needed,  cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle  mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where its needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself.

The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducibly complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.

The salient thing is that the individual parts and compartments have no function by their own. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE, No stepwise manner is possible, all systems are INTERDEPENDENT and IRREDUCIBLE. And it could not be through evolution, since evolution depends on fully working self replicating  cells, in order to function.

How can someone rationally argue that the origin of the most sophisticated factory in the universe would be probable to be based on natural occurence, without involving any guiding intelligence ?

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. â€" Lynn Margulis
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: aitm on January 03, 2017, 09:15:52 PM
yeah....intelligent designer...some of the time.....yea for the some of the time intelligent designer! Woo-hoo!

(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm127/aitm356/abigailbritanny09.jpg)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 03, 2017, 09:44:02 PM
These guys are just crawling out of the woodwork.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 03, 2017, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: aitm on January 03, 2017, 09:15:52 PM
yeah....intelligent designer...some of the time.....yea for the some of the time intelligent designer! Woo-hoo!

(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm127/aitm356/abigailbritanny09.jpg)

Does bad design mean no design ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1302-does-bad-design-affect-the-argument-from-design?highlight=bad+design

It is generally agreed that no human being is perfect or designs things perfectly and yet we are intelligent.
Even suboptimal designs require a designer. The Newcomen steam engine was not nearly as efficient or practical as Watts’ steam engine, but no one in his right mind would suggest on that basis that Newcomen’s engine self-assembled by random chance. Second, some designs that may look suboptimal to us are actual optimal e.g. the panda’s thumb; the panda uses his “thumb” (actually a specialized bone in the wrist) for near continuous grasping of bamboo. If it had used an opposable thumb to do so, as proponents of naturalism suggest as a superior design, it would almost certainly suffer from permanent carpal tunnel syndrome. Third, what we see now is the world as marred by the curse upon sin. For all we know, people as created may have been able to synthesize every necessary vitamin, but some of those abilities may have subsequently been lost due to genetic corruption and drift. Furthermore : Since Genesis history includes the origin of sin and death, it is crucially foundational to the logic of the gospel: a good world, ruined by sin, to be restored in the future.


Some, for example, point to the cruelty in nature, arguing that no self respecting designer would set things up that way. This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process. But that need not be the case. It may well be that the designer chose to create an “OPTIMUM DESIGN” or a “ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE DESIGN” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.

Under such circumstances, the “bad design” argument is not an argument against design at all. It is a premature â€" and, at times, a presumptuous â€" judgment on the sensibilities of the designer. Coming from theistic evolutionists, who claim to be “devout” Christians, this objection is therefore especially problematic. For, as believers within the Judeo-Christian tradition they are committed to the doctrine of original sin, through which our first parents disobeyed God and compromised the harmonious relationship between God and man. Accordingly, this break between the creator and the creature affected the relationship between men, animals, and the universe, meaning that the perfect design was rendered imperfect. A spoiled design is not a bad design.

Juda Kenol : I tend to see many atheists disagree that the quality of nature does not equate to a causal agent but do so not on a logical basis. Its not a question of whether an agent was behind it or not, it is a question of whether great grandma soup could have done a better job; which is less erroneous; and must be done so in scrutiny of every cosmological to subatomic detail . What are you comparing deficiency of the eyeball to when you call it 'unintelligently designed ? Your own conception of God? What you would of done if you were god ? Once you admit this your argument becomes subjective and therefore not an argument at all. Even if we were to accept it, a plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle and if you believe a space shuttle is not intelligently designed , i become less inclined to believe in ID because you exist...
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 03, 2017, 10:06:58 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/a8/17/d5a817fd3a750ed347952631ef8d7f02.jpg)

This shit again?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 03, 2017, 11:11:16 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 03, 2017, 10:06:58 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/a8/17/d5a817fd3a750ed347952631ef8d7f02.jpg)

This shit again?
They never go away.  They don't read.  They don't listen.  The roll in the fact they are full of shit; and they love the smell of that.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 04, 2017, 12:59:57 AM
I'm not reading this novel.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 04, 2017, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 04, 2017, 12:59:57 AMI'm not reading this novel.
50 shades of Ken Ham :P
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:03:14 AM
Anyone can sit there and say that X is impossible.

Just like they did with the telegraph, and electricity, and flight, and rocketry, and space travel, and the internet, and self driving cars, etc.

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: pr126 on January 04, 2017, 02:05:35 AM
Religion.

Not dissimilar to the internalized beliefs of leftist ideology so prevalent in western universities where students get indoctrinated into the Marxist theology.

Different ideology, same results.
The Frankfurt School's "The long march trough the institutions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions)

See Feminism, Post Modernism, SJW, Open Society, and other culture destroying ideas such as STD, obesity, sexual deviance, gender confusion, mental illness becomes a virtue to be celebrated.
The road to perdition.

Here are the results:
[spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFrZsGbO6N0[/spoiler]


Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 05:57:20 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 03, 2017, 10:06:58 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/a8/17/d5a817fd3a750ed347952631ef8d7f02.jpg)

This shit again?

:rotflmao:                        :rotflmao:

This is the first time I saw that meme. Oh my gawd, my insides. I burst. 
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 05:59:35 AM
Quote from: pr126 on January 04, 2017, 02:05:35 AM
Religion.

Not dissimilar to the internalized beliefs of leftist ideology so prevalent in western universities where students get indoctrinated into the Marxist theology.

Different ideology, same results.
The Frankfurt School's "The long march trough the institutions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions)

See Feminism, Post Modernism, SJW, Open Society, and other culture destroying ideas such as STD, obesity, sexual deviance, gender confusion, mental illness becomes a virtue to be celebrated.
The road to perdition.

Here are the results:
[spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFrZsGbO6N0[/spoiler]

Echo...Echooo....Echoooooo

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/a8/17/d5a817fd3a750ed347952631ef8d7f02.jpg)


This shit again?


Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 06:43:44 AM
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

1. Cells are like factories, amazing isn't it?

2. Biology, cellular or neural is not like computers and software.  They are analog, not digital.  Digital is more limited, like only having integers to compute with.

3. Simple organiic molecules have been created in "early earth" experiments, and are found in outer space nebulas (even amino acids).  So simple organic molecules are both generated by living and non-living processes.  This has been a crisis in biochemistry since the mid 19th century, once the first organic molecule was synthesized by industrial process, thus putting a stake in the heart of "vitalism" as far as science is concerned.

4. In so far as we can know, there is a gap in our understanding, of how you get from these simple organic molecules to simple living organisms.  This may take early planetary conditions (why no pre-life forming now? ... I suspect oxygen to be the culprit) or billions of years of simple evolution to demonstrate.  We don't have exact knowledge of early planetary conditions (there was little oxygen, life created most of that), and we can't do long term controlled experiments.  We will have to visit many planets with primitive life, to do a comparative study, if we can ever do that.

5. Reductionism as an empirical tool, has its limitations.  Dealing with living things and thinking beings is one of them.  It works really good with atoms.  But without reductionism, we can't do exact science.  So exact science will never have a handle on "life" or "consciousness" ... the things of greatest interest to religion and most human beings.
Title: The friendly cup of noodles
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
Atheism: Lack of belief in gods an deities.

Challenge: "Abiogenesis is impossible."

Challenger: challengeatheism

Anaology: Because it is like a 1000 men death squad firing nd hitting a man...and intelligent design is awesome, look I can make up several other anologies to show how impossible abiogenesis is.

Reasoning presented by the challenger: "Hail Intelligent Design! Even though I don't really get what is this irreducible complexity, it looks very complex. Let's argue from ignorance. Fuck falsifiability, I dunno what it is, because I don't understand what scientific method is, so fuck it anyway. Cells are soooo complex and soooo cute, look at them, they are full of information! I am drowning in false dilemma(s) because I think this IC thing sounds cool and it looks some sort of a theory against the theory of evolution which I have no idea that that it is actualy the evolutionary sciences have been at work for a long time to make these explanations and the basic theory of evolution itself has been the crucial beginning point of modern sciences and as it constantly keeps getting confirmed right and left -which I keep benefitting every time I get sick- I have no idea the field has been far advanced and embraces everything, therefore I don't understand that by pulling something out from cell biology that I don't get, I am actually not able to challenge the theory of evolution or atheism or cup of noodles for that matter, because it is fucking meaningless. Because while one is a scientific theory, the other is an ancient greek word used to describe a neutral position of the group of people who lack the belief of gods and deities; a nonbeliever group that is consisted of every kind of people from every culture, some might have never heard the word abiogenesis, or even care about it, some might not even call themselves atheists. The cup of noodles is my only ally here. Because abiogenesis is impossible, because obviously there must be a designer and I want one and it feels cold and unsafe, I feel like there must be one."


Atheism: Lack of belief in gods and deities.

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: pr126 on January 04, 2017, 07:20:22 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 05:59:35 AM
Echo...Echooo....Echoooooo

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/a8/17/d5a817fd3a750ed347952631ef8d7f02.jpg)

This shit again?

Just being yourself again?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 04, 2017, 07:41:52 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 06:43:44 AM
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

I won't. Not once once in the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times some asshole has burst in here claiming abiogenesis is impossible has anyone including the OP offered up a reasonable argument in support of their position. Abiogenesis violates no laws of chemistry that would make it impossible. A few have brought thermodynamics to the table, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water either. The OP is nothing more than a copy pasta argument from incredulity. Neither it nor the presenter deserve our respect as respect is earned not owed.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: pr126 on January 04, 2017, 07:20:22 AM
Just being yourself again?

No, I am making fun of you. 
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 08:25:27 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 04, 2017, 07:41:52 AM
I won't. Not once once in the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times some asshole has burst in here claiming abiogenesis is impossible has anyone including the OP offered up a reasonable argument in support of their position. Abiogenesis violates no laws of chemistry that would make it impossible. A few have brought thermodynamics to the table, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water either. The OP is nothing more than a copy pasta argument from incredulity. Neither it nor the presenter deserve our respect as respect is earned not owed.

"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis , and that irreducible complex  biological systems, and coded , instructed or specified complex information could emerge naturally ) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, physical necessity, mutations and  Natural Selection. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that a intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists ? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things.  ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 06:43:44 AM
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

1. Cells are like factories, amazing isn't it?

2. Biology, cellular or neural is not like computers and software.  They are analog, not digital.  Digital is more limited, like only having integers to compute with.

3. Simple organiic molecules have been created in "early earth" experiments, and are found in outer space nebulas (even amino acids).  So simple organic molecules are both generated by living and non-living processes.  This has been a crisis in biochemistry since the mid 19th century, once the first organic molecule was synthesized by industrial process, thus putting a stake in the heart of "vitalism" as far as science is concerned.

4. In so far as we can know, there is a gap in our understanding, of how you get from these simple organic molecules to simple living organisms.  This may take early planetary conditions (why no pre-life forming now? ... I suspect oxygen to be the culprit) or billions of years of simple evolution to demonstrate.  We don't have exact knowledge of early planetary conditions (there was little oxygen, life created most of that), and we can't do long term controlled experiments.  We will have to visit many planets with primitive life, to do a comparative study, if we can ever do that.

5. Reductionism as an empirical tool, has its limitations.  Dealing with living things and thinking beings is one of them.  It works really good with atoms.  But without reductionism, we can't do exact science.  So exact science will never have a handle on "life" or "consciousness" ... the things of greatest interest to religion and most human beings.

So what is your point ?

Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Ibid., p. 130. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/hoyle.html
Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.

Why a living cell cannot arise by chance
So how can we know that it is impossible for a living cell to arise by chance? The answer lies in understanding that a single cell is vastly more complicated than anything human minds have ever engineered. Let us consider the components of a simple cell using the well-studied organism Escherichia coli, which is a single-celled organism found in the human gastrointestinal tract. In 1996 a two-volume, 2,800-page set of articles that summarized some of our knowledge of the biochemistry and biology of this organism was published. Using this data, George Javor, professor of biochemistry at Loma Linda University, calculated the following statistics:

A single living E. coli contains around 2.4 million protein molecules made up of approximately 4,000 different types of proteins. Along with these proteins the cell contains around 255,000 nucleic acid molecules made up of 660 different types of nucleic acids. Included with these nucleic acids are around 1.4 million polysaccharide (long chains of sugar type molecules) molecules made up of three different types of polysaccharides. Associated with these polysaccharides are around 22 million lipid molecules made up of 50 to 100 different types of lipids. These lipids also cooperate with many millions of metabolic intermediate molecules made up of about 800 different types of compounds that have to be at just the right concentration, otherwise the cell will die. Along with the metabolic intermediates there are many millions of mineral molecules made up of 10 to 30 different types of minerals.


We know that intelligence is able to create high-information containing codes, like books, computer codes, and complex machines and factories. We observe in the natural world organisms made by the same principles, namely codified specified information, and  irreducible and interdependent molecular machines and cell factories, while the only possible natural mechanisms, namely chance or random chemical reactions, do not have this broad range of intelligence-like capabilities. Its safe therefore to conclude, that the origin of life is best explained through a intelligent creator, and not well explained through natural mechanisms. This is not a inference based on what we do not know, commonly called " argument from ignorance", as proponents of naturalism frequently like to argue, but it is a conclusion based on what science has discovered in the last few decades about how cells work, and how they are build up. The only rational explanation for the origin of cells, and life, is creation through a intelligent designer.

According to Dembski and Borel  (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).
specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 10^45. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 10^25 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10^150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance

Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10^150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 10^75 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10^150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 04, 2017, 09:59:55 AM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 08:25:27 AMWell, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.
A "just so story", eh?  I think you have religion confused with science.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:03:14 AM
Anyone can sit there and say that X is impossible.

Just like they did with the telegraph, and electricity, and flight, and rocketry, and space travel, and the internet, and self driving cars, etc.
Don'f forget the lightening rod.  Many ministers of the time said that if god wanted you struck by lightening the you will be; the lightening rod was the work of the devil!  I would bet any and all scientific discoveries were decried as 'of the devil'. 
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 10:16:30 AM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 08:25:27 AM
ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.
No shit, charlie!!!  Just because we don't 'know' how life started does not automatically mean god did it.  Or that god is real.  God of the gaps has been proven wrong, time and again.  God of the gaps has not been proven right once!  Your god, nor any god, exists except in the minds of weak minded people like you.  God is a fiction; Bugs Bunny has as much proof for his existence than you god, or any god.  God does not, nor ever did, exist!  Give me one shred of evidence that what I just said is wrong!  So far, none of the weak minded, willfully ignorant, poor excuses for humanity that have come here and claimed god exists has been able to do so.  And neither will you--why not just take your drive-by stupidity and leave.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mr.Obvious on January 04, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
OP,

Please be kind enough to make an introductionary thread and show a basic commitment and interest in the rest of the forum, as you were supposed to, before making threads like these. Or kindly remove yourself from the virtual premises.
Either is fine.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 04, 2017, 11:52:44 AM
Alright, I'm breaking out the copypasta again.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 10:16:30 AM
No shit, charlie!!!  Just because we don't 'know' how life started does not automatically mean god did it.

Limited causal alternatives  do not permit to claim of " not knowing "

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1810-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins

Its not justified to claim " we don't know ", when a limited range of alternatives and options are available. In regard of the existence of the universe, and the origin of life, there are basically two, namely :

1. A intelligent causal agent
2. Natural, blind, unguided random forces and chemical reactions

The second option can be based on physical necessity, or random unguided events ( chance, luck ). 

So we can resume the possible causes just and exactly to 3, namely:

design
random, unguided events ( luck/chance)
physical necessity.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) So there was no evolution prior to DNA replication.  Then proponents of naturalism often resort to the RNA World.  In the “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life, RNA performed both the information storage and enzymatic functions before these roles were outsourced to DNA and proteins.  But how could RNA repair itself?  If RNA needs to be protected from damage, the protein repair system would have needed to be there from the beginning.  Proponents of natural mechanisms might surmise that different primitive RNAs worked side by side to repair each other, but that strains credibility for a hypothesis already far-fetched. The the very origin of the first organisms presents at least an appearance of a paradox because a certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded (Penny, 2005).

Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? The counterargument is ofther that evolution is not random. True. But there was no evolution prior DNA replication was in place.
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ? Its evidently not possible.
But that equals to say, random unguided processes created a optimal genetic code, a genetic cipher, and a uncalculable amount of precise genetic instructions, and a hudge number of precisely shaped interlocked and interdependent molecular parts, that interact with each other in a precise manner to create the first living cell. 

In other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets,  a translation system, and the information content of a enciclopedia  being written in english translated  to chinese  through a extremely sophisticated computer system.

The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information and irreducible complex systems all the time.  The genetic code, its translation system, and irreducible interdependent machinery inside cells is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer. Its not justified to claim ignorance. 

Since chance, and physical necessity won't cut the cake, the best explanation for our existence is design.

Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere, or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.

Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.

Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense?


http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm

The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude â€" a “willful blindness.”  This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism â€" although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”

Because the existence of God is a massively important topic, we cannot afford not to pay attention â€" especially in an age of so many diversions. Philosopher Tom Morris points out that sports, TV, restaurants, concerts, cars, billiards, and a thousand other activities can divert us from the ultimate issues of life. As a result, we don’t “tune into” God. And when a crisis hits (death, hospitalization, natural disaster), we are not really in the best condition to process and make accurate judgments about those deep questions.  The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance; this ignorance is the result of our neglecting our duty.

So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic worldview. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” â€" the view of an “apatheist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle : At that time, the very notion that life might spring into being spontaneously from a nonliving chemical mixture was greeted with fierce criticism from theologians, and even from some scientists. The eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin dismissed the whole idea as “a very ancient speculation,” opining that “science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis.” He stated unequivocally, “Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive.” This left only two alternatives: either life has always existed or its origin was a miracle.

QuoteOr that god is real.  God of the gaps has been proven wrong, time and again.

God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid  to address actually the issues raised. Oponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science based observation, prediction, experiment, and and logical inference and conclusion.  The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown.  This is obvious in regard of all relevant issues :  the origin and fine tuning of the universe,  of life, and biodiversity.


Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 12:03:32 PM
challengeatheism, if you get bored, that guy in white Hijiri posted also has good fan fiction written with him if you are into slash-bdsm. Old, old school-good ones. (Strictly 18+)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
Limited causal alternatives  do not permit to claim of " not knowing "

:rotflmao:

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid  to address actually the issues raised.
I cannot reject an argument that has not been made.  Cut out all the copy and paste crap.  Tell me what 'you' believe (for I know you do not think)--and give me some evidence for that belief.  Can you do that?  I will not hold my breath.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 04, 2017, 12:34:14 PM
Mozartlink, is that you?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 12:28:00 PM
I cannot reject an argument that has not been made.  Cut out all the copy and paste crap.  Tell me what 'you' believe (for I know you do not think)--and give me some evidence for that belief.  Can you do that?  I will not hold my breath.

Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:35:42 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 04, 2017, 12:34:14 PM
Mozartlink, is that you?


i am new here. no sock puppet.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 04, 2017, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:35:42 PM

i am new here. no sock puppet.
Oh. I figured that since you jumped right in to an essay without introducing yourself, you must have figured that you already did introduce yourself with another account.

Do yourself a favor and make an intro thread, telling us about yourself. Thank you.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 04, 2017, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PMThe evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown.
Is that why ID effectively died in the Kitzmiller decision and hasn't really been heard from (aside from the occasional internet cdesign proponentionist (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists)) since?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books.
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider.
Living cells have more information than the hadron collider? Do you know how much data the LHC actually handles per second, or are you just posting hyperbole? Wait. Of course that's hyperbole. The most complex cell has less information than a DVD-ROM. And the first life was not even as complex as modern cells.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Intelligence imho can produce all of this......
Said despite the fact that no intelligence has demonstrated this, ever.

Edit: Well, not the life anyway.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 02:30:15 PM
It looks like he is pharaphrasing various comments and reactions from different boards. The anologies he used are usually found scattered around. (For the Hadron Collider remark.)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 04, 2017, 02:35:09 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

Come on, Hakurei. You've got plenty of time to knock over a tired and worn out old straw man.



Don't you?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

If that were true, nobody would grasp that unguided, random , lucky events are the only alternative to design.


Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.

DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.


QuoteAnd the first life was not even as complex as modern cells.

then my sources must probably lie ?

before you eventually argue , that luca was not the first progenote, be aware that nobody actually knows how that progenote actually would look like.

LUCAâ€"The Last Universal Common Ancestor 1

The last universal common ancestor represents the primordial cellular organism from which diversified life was derived.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2176-lucathe-last-universal-common-ancestor#3995

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2478661/
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse.

Life was born complex and the LUCA displayed that heritage.

Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic635406.files/Becerra%20et%20al%202007.pdf
Theoretical estimates of the gene content of the Last Common Ansestor’s genome suggest that it was not a progenote or a protocell, but an entity similar to extant prokaryotes.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/1005LUCA_ManfredoSeufferheld_JamesWhitfield_Caetano_Anolles.html
New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all, with a complex structure recognizable as a cell, researchers report. Their study appears in the journal Biology Direct. The study lends support to a hypothesis that LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today, said James Whitfield, a professor of entomology at Illinois and a co-author on the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16431085
the estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......
That is all you have--your humble opinion (and don't forget belief, which is another word for willful ignorance).  Of course chance does not produce books.  So what?  Chance, however, is involved in the creation of living cells.  Our universe is so full of all that is needed that any chance at all will produce cells.  And chance will then produce life.  And chance will produce  species.  It is called evolution. 
No, the actual way it happens is not known--yet.  I am not afraid to say 'I don't know.'  And I don't have to ascribe a reason or cause or process to a fiction called god.  You remind me of christian of old.  If one was able to transport a christian from, say the year 600, show them a jumbo jet (since you seem to love them so...) and then tell him it will fly, he/she would call you a liar and tell you it would be impossible.  And when he/she saw it fly, the jet would be called 'of the devil!'.  Your ignorance knows no bounds.  Belief/faith will keep you ignorant your entire life.  I do pity you.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......


If your God was necessary to create all this complexity that is life, then who created the complexity that is your God? If that complexity that is your God needed no creation, then neither did the complexity that is life need your God to create it.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:10:28 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 03:36:35 PM
That is all you have--your humble opinion (and don't forget belief, which is another word for willful ignorance).  Of course chance does not produce books.  So what?  Chance, however, is involved in the creation of living cells.  Our universe is so full of all that is needed that any chance at all will produce cells.  And chance will then produce life.  And chance will produce  species.  It is called evolution. 
No, the actual way it happens is not known--yet.  I am not afraid to say 'I don't know.'  And I don't have to ascribe a reason or cause or process to a fiction called god.  You remind me of christian of old.  If one was able to transport a christian from, say the year 600, show them a jumbo jet (since you seem to love them so...) and then tell him it will fly, he/she would call you a liar and tell you it would be impossible.  And when he/she saw it fly, the jet would be called 'of the devil!'.  Your ignorance knows no bounds.  Belief/faith will keep you ignorant your entire life.  I do pity you.

what amazing faith in chance you have.....

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Chance and the origin of life
Ask the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?
The following answer won’t do: “Life was inevitable, because we are here.” Obviously life did originateâ€"our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Let’s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You can’t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism.

Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you won’t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it won’t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic  against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.

With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:11:18 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 03:58:30 PM

If your God was necessary to create all this complexity that is life, then who created the complexity that is your God? If that complexity that is your God needed no creation, then neither did the complexity that is life need your God to create it.

Who or what created God ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348

The creator is a self existing power. That's unfathomable to the finite mind. Nonetheless, there are wonders of a caliber the time and coincidence argument is hard pressed to attempt to contain. Some may ask, "But who created God?"  The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  Definition of eternal: permanent, unending. Eternal, endless, everlasting, perpetual imply lasting or going on without ceasing. That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is beyond space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spiritâ€"a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit.

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

God is not complex
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideasâ€"it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculusâ€", but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideasâ€"it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculusâ€", but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

  Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planetâ€"look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of itâ€"the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:11:18 PM
The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.



How convenient for you to be able simply to define your eternal, uncreated God into existence...
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 04:48:49 PM
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)






(https://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/origin-of-life.png?w=614)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:10:28 PM
what amazing faith in chance you have.....

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Chance and the origin of life
Ask the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?
The following answer won’t do: “Life was inevitable, because we are here.” Obviously life did originateâ€"our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Let’s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You can’t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism.

Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you won’t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it won’t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic  against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.

With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.
Look, keep your cut and paste to yourself--I'm not reading it.  If you can't think well enough to use your own words.............what am I thinking.  You are a christian--you hate critical thinking and facts.  You dwell only in the world of belief and faith.  So far you have offered nothing of yourself.  I can go online and look up the same pitiful sites you do, but I've done that already.  You can find this same discussion you want to have recorded here already--many times actually.  Look it up--if you can an index.  And so far you have not produced one shred of evidence for the existence of your god.  We both know why that is, don't we?  There isn't any.  Sort of like brains in your head.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 04:49:49 PM
And so far you have not produced one shred of evidence for the existence of your god.  We both know why that is, don't we?  There isn't any.  Sort of like brains in your head.

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god



In our search for God, where we start will often determine where we end. If you search for God only to show yourself that He is not there, then you will not find Him. But if you seek him like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.

   "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10

Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world?these questions ARE in my view best explained through creations, and ARE therefore evidence for for creationism , and intelligent design. There are just personal preferences of explanations and world views for all that exists.  So rather than say, there is no evidence for God, you should say : Intelligent design and creationism and theism are not my peferred explanations, for whatever reasons.

The right philosophical question is : what is the best explanation for our existence.

There are not proofs, wheter God exists, or not. To proof , God does not exist, you would btw. need to be all knowing. You are not, therefore, you cannot proof either Gods inexistence.


We could ask the question "Is there evidence that God exists?" and we could mean "Is it reasonable to think that God exists?" 2In other words, are there pieces of evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that God exists even if the evidence is not completely conclusive and utterly compelling?

You're not actually talking about evidence, you're talking about an interpretation of the evidence. As in, there is no evolutionary interpretation of the evidence which supports creation . This equivocation is used to deny any interpretation of the evidence which does not support evolution, which is exactly what a creation interpretation of the evidence does.

So, to remove the interpretation, let's look at the first claim in the Bible: that God created the earth and the universe. Surely you would agree the earth and the universe exist. Therefore there certainly is evidence outside of the Bible. Of course your response will be that it's only a claim in the Bible that God did it. That's fine, but it's beside the point. The point is that the existence of the earth is the actual evidence. How the earth came to be, whether through special creation or through stellar evolution, is a matter of interpretation of the evidence.

There is no evidence for God’s existence. 3 There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.

One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all ‘real’ things are physical).”

The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God â€" as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe â€" does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.

This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.

However, if what they mean is something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheist’s argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical. Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: “Why can’t there be a physical explanation of existence? Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence.” The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, entity is God. His absolute “existence” is more real than physical existence by order of priority.

But besides logical arguments an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God. There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God. On these matters Kierkegaard had it right â€" in objectivity there is no truth for the single individual; the truth is subjectivity.




1. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
2. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
3. https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
I needn't be "all-knowing" to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor must I be omniscient to know that a theistic God doesn't exist:


https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatible-properties_argument




If something - such as a theistic God - cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 06:09:29 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 05:59:39 PM
" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!


You are a christian.  And like most I have come in contact with, they are not just brain dead, but brain lacking.  You are typical in that you can't read.  I am not going to read that shit you cut and paste.  I've read it before--many times.  I was very detailed in my research into the question of god and the bible and the christian religion.  I am not going to re-read that shit.  I am more than happy to discuss the issue with you, but I will NOT read that cut and paste crap.  And 'really' there is not a shed of evidence that god exists or existed--any god.  If you want to discuss, then discuss.  I am not the one who invaded your forum, you invaded mine with the clear intention of putting me in  my place and showing me the error of my ways.  Well, do it. 
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: TrueStory on January 04, 2017, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......

Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 06:22:24 PM
We need us a good gong!





(http://media.salon.com/2001/03/chuck_barris.jpg)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 06:22:24 PM
We need us a good gong!





(http://media.salon.com/2001/03/chuck_barris.jpg)
Yeah, we could use that.  But even more, we could use a bigger picture of your avatar, errrr..............girls butt.....................................
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:10:25 PM
Quote from: TrueStory on January 04, 2017, 06:15:46 PM
Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/

Thank you for quoting Nietzsche (myth of eternal return) ... and every bit of literature (say Hamlet) has been and will be written identically an infinite number of times.

The intention behind every word use, is unique to the occasion and the poster ... unless you think we are all one person, with multiple personality disorder, crazily trolling itself.

Sorry ... wejeudhfyjtydw ... isn't literature.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:12:16 PM
The problem isn't that people aren't omniscient ... but that per Socrates, we are know-nothings.  As well as delusional and duplicitous about this fact.  Per Buddha, even your vaunted ego doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
If that were true, nobody would grasp that unguided, random , lucky events are the only alternative to design.
Because you say so. Nobody is proposing an alternate explanation for books and jumbo jets.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
Apparently, these morons have never heard of a ribosome, whereupon singificant enzymic activity is still carried out by RNA in all of life. Their function derive from the fact that each nucleotide base is a different chemical arrangement with different functional groups, with different chemical properties that are brought into proximity by their sequence in the strand. The sequence does determine the chemistry of that RNA strand, the same way that the sequence of amino acids in a protien does determine the chemistry of the protein. The active site of an enzyme takes exactly this kind of form, distinct monomers with different functional groups and chemical properties being brought into proximity by their sequence in the enzyme.

Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know shit or is lying.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.
Those letters ATGC stand for chemically distinct nitrogenous bases: adanine, thymine, cytosine and guanine. They only show very little activity in modern DNA because they are paired up with a complementary chain and not allowed to fold around themselves to bring multiple units into close proximity. RNA has no such restrictions (and replacing thymine with uracil), and as such it finds enzymic function in quite ancient mechanisms such as the snRNP system and the ribosome. Hell, even paired-up DNA shows some distinct chemistry because that's how promotor and operator regions do their job.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.
Sorry, sport. You haven't done nearly enough to dismiss the laws of chemistry from the list of possibilities.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM
then my sources must probably lie ?
To be frank, yes. DNA can only be "pure code" if you ignore the fact that it's still made up of bonded atoms, and thus, will have some chemical properties. Every substance made up of atoms will have chemical properties. Period. Hell, if DNA didn't have some chemical properties, it could not do its job to be the information store of life at all.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 04, 2017, 09:50:10 PM
Sorry, Pasteur was going about demolishing the idea of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.  Two completely different things.

The rest is equally as factually incorrect.  Thanks for playing, though!  Care to try again and check your facts this time?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:02:35 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 04, 2017, 09:50:10 PM
Sorry, Pasteur was going about demolishing the idea of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.  Two completely different things.

The rest is equally as factually incorrect.  Thanks for playing, though!  Care to try again and check your facts this time?

19th century spontaneous generation is different than 20th century abiogenesis.  And as I pointed out, there is evidence, incomplete, for abiogenesis.  If natural systems don't follow the limitations of Pythagoras (all reality is numbers) then the restrictions we know about numbers, may well not apply to nature.  The cop out that everything is nature, including mathematics ... is not an excuse.  That is like finding out the moon isn't made a green cheese, and then doubling down, saying that in fact it is made of green cheese, because everything is made of green cheese (because we change the definition of green cheese to match our argument).
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 10:05:27 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 09:46:13 PM
You haven't done nearly enough to dismiss the laws of chemistry from the list of possibilities.

Again. Read carefully :

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules.  The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.

DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 04, 2017, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 09:46:13 PMBecause you say so. Nobody is proposing an alternate explanation for books and jumbo jets.
Yeah.  It really helps that we can watch books and jumbo jets being made.  We can personally see every step of the process if we wish.

God creating biological lifeforms...not so much.  Does he cross his arms and blink, like in I Dream of Jeanie?  Or does he snap his fingers like Q?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:12:44 PM
Aristitle's 4 kinds of causation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Material cause, Formal cause, Efficient cause, Final cause.  This works good if you are describing a Greek creating a statue.  The Material cause is the block of marble.  The Formal cause is the shape that the sculptor will carve out of the marble.  The Efficient cause are the tools the sculptor uses for the carving.  The Final cause is the religious motivation of the sculptor to portray a divinity.  Technically, the human element shows up in the Efficient cause and the Final cause.  But if something is formed in nature, without agency (a crystal of pyrite) ... then there is no necessary Efficient or Final cause.  It simply happens because of the laws of nature, which do not require a deity.  The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 11:01:19 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 10:05:27 PM
physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules.  The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
So what if the content of DNA is not constrained by chemistry? The replication of DNA is not dictated by the specific base sequence in DNA, but by the mutual and preferential attraction between thyamine and adanine, and cytosine and guanine. The only thing that is required for replication there is that the nucleotides be held in place for long enough for them to spontaneously polymerize together. Proteins only help that occur quickly in modern organisms.

So that's heiredity right there. After that, evolution can take over, favoring sequences that can self-catalyze this polymerization. (RNA is functional.)

Try again.

Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:12:44 PM
The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.
You are wrong to believe that materialists don't believe in agency at all. They do. It exists insofar as it can exist as a property of physical beings.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Cavebear on January 05, 2017, 12:38:39 AM
Quote from: TrueStory on January 04, 2017, 06:15:46 PM
Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/

It is a reflective program.  You type anything, it claims to have it already.  Seriously, did anyone previously ever type "when on youthful freaked more warp, the loss birthed a wiggle."?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: TrueStory on January 05, 2017, 01:27:07 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2017, 12:38:39 AM
It is a reflective program.  You type anything, it claims to have it already.  Seriously, did anyone previously ever type "when on youthful freaked more warp, the loss birthed a wiggle."?

You know how I know you are serious, you said seriously.    And yes you can type anything and it does have it already, the page numbers do not change.    Seriously.    But yah it is an algorithm.   
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:25:17 AM
If atoms have no agency, then physical beings have no agency .. unless of course physical beings are more than physical, and Thales is wrong that everything is made of water.  Except for the bullshit of ephiphenomenalism, new physics at new scales.  Physics is the same at all scales.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 05, 2017, 09:39:55 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:25:17 AM
If atoms have no agency, then physical beings have no agency .. unless of course physical beings are more than physical, and Thales is wrong that everything is made of water.  Except for the bullshit of ephiphenomenalism, new physics at new scales.  Physics is the same at all scales.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, and I can quantum tunnel through a wall because my individual atoms can. Oh, wait. I can't. So that's one demonstration of your error. Furthermore, the the gauge bosons behave differently because their gauge symmetries (symmetries of scale) are broken. The scales involved are very small, but they're still broken. At large scales you don't have to worry about the weak or strong interactions. At the extremely large scales of cosmology, you don't really have to worry about the elecromagnetic interaction either â€" the physics at that scale is almost completely dominated by gravity. The physical laws haven't changed; the way they apply do.

Similarly, when you gather a bunch of individual atoms together, you get a whole slew of new phenomena called "chemistry" â€" physics has no concept of acids and bases, yet compositions of atoms quite definitely have these properties. Even the solidity of matter is a consequence of how subatomic particles interact. Even larger collections of atoms have the ability to gather information about their environment, process it, come up with a plan of action, and execute it â€" agency. This is not something individual atoms can do because they're too simple.

You keep insisting that epiphenomena don't exist, when we have clear examples of it existing, because you think that composition fallacies aren't fallacies. Sorry, chum, they are. You have no philosophical guarantee at all that collections of objects cannot display phenomena not possessed by its components. And before saying otherwise, I challenge you to pour concentrated hydrochloric acid on your skin to demonstrate that acidity doesn't exist because none of its individual atoms are acidic.

So, yeah, epiphenomena exist, your protests notwithstanding. Materialists believe agency exists. We just don't think there's anything mystical about it.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 05, 2017, 02:15:55 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 04, 2017, 10:06:15 PM
Yeah.  It really helps that we can watch books and jumbo jets being made.  We can personally see every step of the process if we wish.

God creating biological lifeforms...not so much.  Does he cross his arms and blink, like in I Dream of Jeanie?  Or does he snap his fingers like Q?

Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life. 
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.


In order to make design predictions, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature - Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a intelligently designed system:

( Follwing requirements which consist in a unsurmountable problem for unguided naturalistic processes are met ) :

1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.  The requirement and existence of  individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system,  which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a  intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences )
2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right  materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order.
Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
Coordinating and instruct  the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc.
3) Establishment of communication systems. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input )
4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors.
5) A system which uses a cipher, translating  instructions through one language  ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids
6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
7  Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
8  exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system.
9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics
10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start.
12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical  systems.
13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing )
14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems.
15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 05, 2017, 02:17:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:12:44 PM
Aristitle's 4 kinds of causation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Material cause, Formal cause, Efficient cause, Final cause.  This works good if you are describing a Greek creating a statue.  The Material cause is the block of marble.  The Formal cause is the shape that the sculptor will carve out of the marble.  The Efficient cause are the tools the sculptor uses for the carving.  The Final cause is the religious motivation of the sculptor to portray a divinity.  Technically, the human element shows up in the Efficient cause and the Final cause.  But if something is formed in nature, without agency (a crystal of pyrite) ... then there is no necessary Efficient or Final cause.  It simply happens because of the laws of nature, which do not require a deity.  The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.

good point.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 05, 2017, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 10:05:27 PM
Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms.
Wow, so much wrongness here.

You are conflating abiogenesis with a fully functioning cell containing modern DNA.  The two are not the same.  No one -- no one -- researching abiogenesis claims that DNA spontaneously appeared one day and that was that.  For you to claim otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest, and either way it's pure straw man.  The only people who do seem to think that life arose with a complete cell are those who are trying to cast unsupported doubts on the natural appearance of life on Earth and twist it to their own religious agenda.

What formed first was a simple, and probably not terrifically accurate, self-replicating molecule.  Where did that come from?  Well, this is where chance comes into it, although the odds were significantly stacked in favor of one (and probably several) arising.

See, here's the thing.  You can't take a cup of organic chemicals and stare at it for a week and declare abiogenesis is not possible because nothing happened in that cup.  But when you're talking about oceans -- literally oceans -- rich in organic compounds, stirred by UV radiation from the sun and heat from the still-cooling Earth and monumental tides from the then-closer moon, and doing essentially quintillions of undirected chemical experiments a second over a period of half a billion years, it would be more shocking if something self-replicating didn't emerge from that.

Probably several crude self-replicators all competed at the same time.  There's no reason for abiogenesis to have occurred only once, and the entire liquid portion of the planet's surface was essentially one huge laboratory.  The poorer replicators died out due to too many errors in transcription, and their component molecules would have gone into the better replicators, the ones with a high enough error rate to make useful mutations possible, but a low enough error rate to preserve the self-replication function.

Set your egg timer for half a billion years and wait.  You don't need to do anything for a while, and neither does anyone else.  What's going to happen is that the better replicators are going to proliferate, and mutations -- whether caused by UV damage or transcription error -- allow evolution and natural selection to take over.  What that first cell was, and what we are, are the descendents of the replicator that on average out-performed any others that might have existed.  RNA and DNA may not be the best way to transmit genetic information, but they damn skippy worked well enough, and any other replicators that might have arisen have either been driven extinct or have been subsumed into RNA/DNA's collective bag of genetic tricks.

Now, where in there do you mark a line dividing 'not life' from 'life'?  Hell if I know.  I don't think you can.  Once you have that replicator, you have a continuum that leads you closer and closer to something we can unequivocally call 'living', but there are a lot of points along the way that are sufficiently life-like to make the 'first life' question nearly unanswerable.

There is no need for 'agency'.  Time and tide will turn the trick.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: kilodelta on January 05, 2017, 04:12:01 PM
/yawn

No wonder YouTube atheists have not been debunking theism as much as they used to. Theists are not presenting any new arguments, facts, or observations. Same old junk... tornado in a junkyard... science in the Korean... too complex... beauty of nature... information within cell... baaa.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2017, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
Yeah, we could use that.  But even more, we could use a bigger picture of your avatar, errrr..............girls butt.....................................

Couldn't find a larger example of that, butt I'm glad you like it!

:weed:


Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 05, 2017, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 05, 2017, 02:15:55 PM
Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life. 
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.
Ah, yes, the ol' "murder scene" canard. The problem is, that we know what a murder scene looks like, because we know how to kill people. You clowns are still stuck with the problem of how to identify design in creatures in the first place, because every time you point to a biological system that cannot evolve, scientists come along and explain how that biological system evolved with evidence.

Quote
1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.  The requirement and existence of  individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system,  which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a  intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences )
Sorry, chum. Irreducable complex systems are possible to evolve, and are in fact predicted by evolution. It comes from a fundamental error that evolution cannot ratchet down complexity as well as ratchet it up â€" that it cannot dispose of now-unnecessary elements of the system. In all biological systems with "irreducible complexity," you clowns have either failed to show that the system really is irreducibly complex, or real scientists have shown how that system evolved.

Quote
2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right  materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order.
Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
Coordinating and instruct  the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc.
Even in these "well matched" systems, there's a lot of variability. People come in all shapes and sizes, and biological systems have quite a bit of tollerance to how far they can stray from the norm before they cease function. When a system evolves, it starts out as a simple tweak to an already existing, working subsystem, whereupon improvements are accumulated through trial and error. It's not something that requires any purposeful design.

Quote
3) Establishment of communication systems. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input )
Biological signals are at the base physical phenomena. All signaling molecules in the body are derived from structural and functional biomolecules. A cell can evolve a crude signaling method to (say) attract another cell of its own type by releasing food molecules into its environment, and the target cell would move in to eat it. This very basic form of signaling can be refined by evolution. Electrical signals disrupt ion channels, etc.

Quote
4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors.
These two are in conflict and evolution finds the golden mean between the two. An optimized genetic code is more prone to errors, and a code better able to gracefully handle errors are less efficient.

Quote
5) A system which uses a cipher, translating  instructions through one language  ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids
cdk007 has an interesting video on that. The skinny goes like this: Some of the early ribozymes had need for cofactors, and some of them were short peptide chains. Any proto-cell that is able to synthesize those peptides themselves have compedative advantage. Ribozymes evolve to synthesize a plethora of these peptides. Refinements of this mechanism appear by getting ribozymes able to bind to specific peptides, then a structural RNA binds those specific charged ribozymes together, and helper ribozymes assist polymerization. The helper ribozymes become the cheif binders, leaving the former charged ribozymes as carriers. And you have the ancestors of mRNA, tRNA and ribosomes.

Quote
6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
These are the result of evolutionary tinkering, not design. In design terms, complex dependencies are bad because they interfere with finding faults in the design, so wise engineers reduce them to the minimum necessary to do the job. In evolution, these complex dependencies are only to be expected because new structure ovolves from modifying old structure, so derived structures also tend to be dependant structures.

Quote
7  Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
Again, because evolution modifies rather than creates stuff ex nihilo, such complexity and scale is only expected.

Quote
8  exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system.
Well, yeah. Proteins and the such are limited resources, as such an organism able to regluate how proteins are expressed â€"deploying them only when they are neededâ€" provides a huge advantage. So organisms with regulatory genes are only to be expected to evolve.

Quote
9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics
More of the same. An organism that is more able to efficiently deploy its gene expression is at an evolutionary advantage and proliferates over those that cannot.

Quote
10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
Yes, an organism able to repair damaged DNA is able to preserve its genes more faithfully and therefore those genes will proliferate in that organism's offspring. But there are limits to the payoffs for this kind of thing. Eventually, you're going to be spending too much energy and material on repairing damage and not enough on reproducing.

Quote
11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start.
Well, any organism able to recycle its amino acids from old proteins is going to be at a huge advantage, because otherwise those old proteins clog up the cytoplasm and represent lost peptides.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that you are asserting that a lot of this stuff you described was present "right from the start," that is right from the start of life. While these mechanisms are ancient,  How do you know they were present right from the very beginning, rather than evolved along the way?

Quote
12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical  systems.
Anyone who doesn't see the evolutionary advantage to refining all these to right balance needs to stop posting now.

Quote
13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing )
The system would evolve regardless.

Quote
14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems.
Because that wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage. Oh wait. It is.

Quote
15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
So certain are you. If it popped up all fully formed all at once, yes, that would be true. But it didn't. The genetic code, replication, error correction, and recycling were developed and refined long before cells started cooperating together, which in turn was developed and refined long before the Cambrian explosion. Four billion years is a long time.

Quote
16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
Mere assertions.

Quote
17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.
Whenever you have imperfect replication and environmental attrition, you get evolution as a natural consequence.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: aitm on January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books.

Thats an assumption. Supposedly, your grand designer has been around "forever"...so when forever is over maybe indeed a book or a jumbo will simply be produced. I can wait.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 05, 2017, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: aitm on January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 PM
Thats an assumption. Supposedly, your grand designer has been around "forever"...so when forever is over maybe indeed a book or a jumbo will simply be produced. I can wait.
Holy. Crap. That's actually brilliant!
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 07:20:09 AM
Abiogenesis in impossible? So God could create a cell so complex even he couldn't create it? (Apologies to St. George of Carlin.)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mermaid on January 06, 2017, 08:25:33 AM
What the.

Put your parents on the phone. I'll wait. I would like to have a word with them about how they raised you.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 06, 2017, 03:01:34 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 05, 2017, 02:43:38 PM
There is no need for 'agency'.  Time and tide will turn the trick.

Objection:  There are 31 million seconds in a single year, meaning that if you multiply that by ten billion you get an astronomical amount of chances and don't forget just because something is largely unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible
Answer: Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its provenâ€"its knownâ€"causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
â€" A. I. Oparin

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :

As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 06, 2017, 03:41:33 PM
I repeat, since you're committing the exact same blunder again, that the fallacy in your position is that you are assuming going from zero to a fully functional cell in one go.  The only person here who asserts -- or even thinks -- that hemoglobin (much less a complete cell) spontaneously self-assembled out of clutter is you.

I repeat: the first thing to appear was a self-replicating molecule, not a complete cell.  If you continue to insist on spontaneous self-assembly of complete interlocked systems, you are deliberately absenting yourself from rational debate.  That is not by any stretch the current state of the theory, and the only people who insist that it is are those who insist on creationism in one manner or another.  If you want to debate abiogenesis, you have a responsibility to address the actual state of the field, not the nonsensical strawman you insist on creating.

I doubt you have the ability to do that, but hey, it's a very large universe and small-probability events happen all the time.

So let's start here: without copypasting, explain what hemoglobin would have to do with abiogenesis?  Considering that's billions of years before the earliest known creature with a vascualr system existed (about half a billion years ago, some three to three and a half billion years after life arose).  Prokaryotes don't require much in the way of circulation; blood is useless for unicellular life, and for the smallest protists.

Because basically, your argument boils down to "I can't imagine it, therefore it can't have happened that way".

Fortunately, the universe is not bound by the tiny limits of your imagination.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Unbeliever on January 06, 2017, 03:46:09 PM
(http://8ltm540r9du3jv6f14cusmh6.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/section4-chap43a.jpg)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 06, 2017, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 05, 2017, 02:15:55 PMSame when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.
You are still confusing inferring things (deducing from empirical data) with assuming things (arriving on the scene with conclusions in hand)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 06, 2017, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 06, 2017, 03:41:33 PM
I repeat, since you're committing the exact same blunder again, that the fallacy in your position is that you are assuming going from zero to a fully functional cell in one go.  The only person here who asserts -- or even thinks -- that hemoglobin (much less a complete cell) spontaneously self-assembled out of clutter is you.

I repeat: the first thing to appear was a self-replicating molecule, not a complete cell.  If you continue to insist on spontaneous self-assembly of complete interlocked systems, you are deliberately absenting yourself from rational debate.  That is not by any stretch the current state of the theory, and the only people who insist that it is are those who insist on creationism in one manner or another.  If you want to debate abiogenesis, you have a responsibility to address the actual state of the field, not the nonsensical strawman you insist on creating.

I doubt you have the ability to do that, but hey, it's a very large universe and small-probability events happen all the time.

So let's start here: without copypasting, explain what hemoglobin would have to do with abiogenesis?  Considering that's billions of years before the earliest known creature with a vascualr system existed (about half a billion years ago, some three to three and a half billion years after life arose).  Prokaryotes don't require much in the way of circulation; blood is useless for unicellular life, and for the smallest protists.

Because basically, your argument boils down to "I can't imagine it, therefore it can't have happened that way".

Fortunately, the universe is not bound by the tiny limits of your imagination.

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/christianity-promotes-rational-and-evidential-exploration/

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 06, 2017, 05:11:28 PM

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.
You are simply robotic--you can only cut and paste and even then only by vomiting up the same crap you have been fed.  I see no thinking here, no reasoning.  You are led around by the nose by you willful blindness and faith.  So, your cut and paste statement suggests you have faith because of evidence.  Name one piece of evidence--so far you have not.  You say, "be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.--coming from you has given me the biggest belly laugh I've had in ages!  I can barely type through the tears of laughter!!!  What a pathetic idiot you are--you and reason associated together???!!! Yeah, right.............................
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 06, 2017, 08:07:52 PM
Good grief. Challengedtheism, the only thing you're doing is copypasting pre-canned answers from your favorite websites like a good little drone. Are you going to show that you have two brain cells to rub together and produce anything that is your own thoughts, your own opinions, your own cleverness, your own analysis?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2017, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 06, 2017, 08:07:52 PM
Good grief. Challengedtheism, the only thing you're doing is copypasting pre-canned answers from your favorite websites like a good little drone. Are you going to show that you have two brain cells to rub together and produce anything that is your own thoughts, your own opinions, your own cleverness, your own analysis?
Don't think so. 
There is no 'there' there.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 07, 2017, 02:00:11 AM
I haven't read more than 2 of challengetheism's posts... the first couple, to be exact... Is he acting up and does something need to be done or can I go back to recovering from my cold?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 07, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
He is just copy-pasting. Nothing we haven't seen for many times.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 07, 2017, 02:00:11 AM
I haven't read more than 2 of challengetheism's posts... the first couple, to be exact... Is he acting up and does something need to be done or can I go back to recovering from my cold?
He is simply a theist, therefore brainless and pretty harmless--except to himself.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 07, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 09:44:02 AM
He is simply a theist, therefore brainless and pretty harmless--except to himself.
Ah OK. As you were, then

Sent from your mom.

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Sal1981 on January 07, 2017, 03:01:54 PM
Even if Abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion chance, it only has to happen once. And once it happens, a proto-cell replicating, evolution takes over and you get trees, mushrooms, dogs & cats, and Internet trolls.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 07, 2017, 03:01:54 PM
Even if Abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion chance, it only has to happen once. And once it happens, a proto-cell replicating, evolution takes over and you get trees, mushrooms, dogs & cats, and Internet trolls.

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Sal1981 on January 07, 2017, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
Only thing that's unreasonable thing here is that you're still not banned.

Heard and read the Junkyard-747 "reasoning" hundreds of times, so much so, it now has that title! The firing squad is connected how exactly?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mermaid on January 07, 2017, 03:51:20 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
I am still waiting to talk to your parents.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: kilodelta on January 07, 2017, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

It Is not about surprise. The "argument of low possibility (chance)" is not compelling when the other side is confident that the event did happen. To use your analogy, 1000 marksmen missed their target. To argue that the event didn't happen because the likelihood is too low is a moot point because it is in the past with recorded results. Possibility is a prediction on the future, not a fact-finding tool for the past. It's like someone (creationist) thinking that some bullets must have actually hit because the possibility is too low for them to not hit... or the possibility of molecules coming together into a fashion that become self replicating is too low a possibility to happen.

One would expect flipping a penny 1,000 times would get about 50/50 heads and tails. But, if the results were 1,000 times coming up heads (very unlikely), saying it should have been 50/50 does not negate the results.

In fact, stating that it has a very low possibility is admitting to it being possible.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
In other words the universe is just to gosh darn complicated!  How can a guy be expected to understand all this stuff????   It just makes my head so achy.  But if god did it, then I can understand.....yeah, that's the ticket, god did it.  Now I can sound downright sage.  Hey, ya'll god did it, god did it, god did it.................wow, that is so easy!!
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 07, 2017, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PMThe possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein..
Ah yes, Hoyle's fallacy (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-tornado-in-the-junkyard/).  I'll give you a minute to guess how it got that name.

QuoteHow could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"
This is a disingenuous rhetorical question, but what the hell, might as well answer it anyway.

First off, you are approaching this as if chemicals had some sort of agency, that they came up with the idea of the first protocell then got to work.  Completely assbackwards and indicative of a creationist hocus pocus approach to science.

Second, we know that RNA is produced through natural processes.  We also know that phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in water.  Replicating molecules and the precursors of cell membranes - there's a plausible pathway from non-life to life right there.

The field of abiogenesis gets way more complicated than that, but I'm not sure you can follow a genealogy that doesn't involve a chain of begats, so that'll have to do for now.

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)

QuoteThe nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious.
Oh the irony!
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 07, 2017, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
Ker-snip.
You know what, you and your ilk talk a long yarn about chances this and chances that, but you never come up with a single calculation that actually holds up under scrutiny. Take your Boeing from a tornado example. What makes you think that the chances of life forming are in any way comparable to a tornado ripping through a junkyard to form a 747? You have no calcuations, not even a back of the envelope calculation. You just walk up and stamp life impossible because two numbers you don't have any idea of the magnitude are "equal" in your eyes. What a laugh.

You talk a long yarn about how life contains soooo much information, comparing it to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but again you have no numbers to back you up in this assertion. You just make up shit and come along with your little stamp.

You bitch about us believing that life came into existence suddenly fully formed comparable to modern life. No. That's what you believe, with your creationism nonsense. Don't you realize that, because your God is supposedly still around, life should still be popping up fully formed, as well as a plethora of less complicated things (including Bibles spontaneously forming â€" oh, wait. That would bankrupt good little Christian publishing houses)? But no, spontaneous creation of both life and books has been disconfirmed. Ergo, your God is dead.

Quote
However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him.
Why not? 1000s of creation idiots keep trying to aim at abiogenesis but keep missing the actual target, with your "fully modern life could not be created by chance" canard. Hey, it's called "modern" life for a reason, sport.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 07, 2017, 08:36:34 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 07, 2017, 08:04:46 PMYou know what, you and your ilk talk a long yarn about chances this and chances that, but you never come up with a single calculation that actually holds up under scrutiny. Take your Boeing from a tornado example. What makes you think that the chances of life forming are in any way comparable to a tornado ripping through a junkyard to form a 747? You have no calcuations, not even a back of the envelope calculation. You just walk up and stamp life impossible because two numbers you don't have any idea of the magnitude are "equal" in your eyes. What a laugh.
Also, it's worth noting that God is exempted from this tornado argument.  It's taken on faith that an omnimax God was around to kickstart the universe from nothing, but a simple bacterium is too complex to possibly arise from the soup of chemicals churning around in the ocean.

(http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Images/Community-Education/GSWA_stromatolites_01_rdax_620x465.jpg)

^too complicated to possibly have evolved!  Wake up, sheeple!

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3009092/images/n-GOD-628x314.jpg)

^100% real and requires no explanation.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2017, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 06, 2017, 05:11:28 PM
Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/christianity-promotes-rational-and-evidential-exploration/

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.

So, now that you've described your problem, care to address the points I raised?  Personally, I doubt it.  You're just another coward trying to pretend to be a religious bully.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2017, 08:57:45 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 07, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
And what you fail to realize is that in the conditions available four billion years ago, a one-in-a-trillion chance would have happened approximately one billion times immediately.

And you're still expecting complete interlocking systems to arise out of nothing.  You have been told this is not the way it was.  Since you're insisting on that, that makes you a liar.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 08, 2017, 03:45:36 AM
Oh, and one other point about the so-called "problem" of irreducible complexity:

The entire history of science is that things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better measurements and/or better explanations come along.

What the argument of irreducible complexity says is: "I can't figure this thing out, and no one else ever will at any time in the future".

Just who the hell do you think you are to dare make such an obscenely arrogant statement?  How delusional are you that you think you are the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge?

Let me see not only your advanced degrees in at least two of the biological sciences, but also your Nobels in both Physiology and Chemistry -- then, and only then, might I give your assertion of possessing that deep a knowledge not only of the present but of the future state of research the most passing glance.  And after about two seconds, my statement will still be, how dare you make such an arrogant statement?

Are you really so appallingly self-centered and conceited that you can't conceive that there might be someone some day smarter than you who might be able to figure out all the things that you personally can't understand?  Because if science worked that way, we'd still be fumbling about in caves trying to figure this wheel thing out.

And if that's the world you want, where arrogant self-righteousness is more valuable, more 'true' than just sitting down and examining the evidence with an open mind rather than a pre-conceived notion, then you are a hypocrite every time you pick up a phone, every time you sit down to spew your uninformed nonsense on the Internet, every time you get into a car -- hell, every time you put on a shirt that has some polyester content.

Just by being on this site, you have accepted the gifts that thousands of years of science have made available to you.

And all you can do is piss all over it.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 10:27:53 AM
^This!  2 likes if possible!
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2017, 03:45:36 AM
Oh, and one other point about the so-called "problem" of irreducible complexity:

The entire history of science is that things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better measurements and/or better explanations come along.

What the argument of irreducible complexity says is: "I can't figure this thing out, and no one else ever will at any time in the future".

Just who the hell do you think you are to dare make such an obscenely arrogant statement?  How delusional are you that you think you are the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge?

Let me see not only your advanced degrees in at least two of the biological sciences, but also your Nobels in both Physiology and Chemistry -- then, and only then, might I give your assertion of possessing that deep a knowledge not only of the present but of the future state of research the most passing glance.  And after about two seconds, my statement will still be, how dare you make such an arrogant statement?

Are you really so appallingly self-centered and conceited that you can't conceive that there might be someone some day smarter than you who might be able to figure out all the things that you personally can't understand?  Because if science worked that way, we'd still be fumbling about in caves trying to figure this wheel thing out.

And if that's the world you want, where arrogant self-righteousness is more valuable, more 'true' than just sitting down and examining the evidence with an open mind rather than a pre-conceived notion, then you are a hypocrite every time you pick up a phone, every time you sit down to spew your uninformed nonsense on the Internet, every time you get into a car -- hell, every time you put on a shirt that has some polyester content.

Just by being on this site, you have accepted the gifts that thousands of years of science have made available to you.

And all you can do is piss all over it.

Is Intelligent Design based on gaps of knowledge and ignorance?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1983-is-intelligent-design-based-on-gaps-of-knowledge-and-ignorance

It's not.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Observation: Intelligent agents  act frequently  with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex  multipart-machines, and  make  exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers   integrate  software/hardware and store  high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store  large amounts of specified/instructed complex information  such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in a interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures  that perform  specific functions -- indicating high levels of  Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide  function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely  Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,  Signal Transduction Codes,  Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes , and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducible complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing  and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A step wise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knock out experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducible complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and  point out a non-intelligent source  of  Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is   best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 07, 2017, 08:57:45 PM
And what you fail to realize is that in the conditions available four billion years ago, a one-in-a-trillion chance would have happened approximately one billion times immediately.

And you're still expecting complete interlocking systems to arise out of nothing.  You have been told this is not the way it was.  Since you're insisting on that, that makes you a liar.

Objection:  There are 31 million seconds in a single year, meaning that if you multiply that by ten billion you get an astronomical amount of chances and don't forget just because something is largely unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible
Answer: Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

The protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly. What are we to say of the 25,000 individual, highly specialized, absolutely necessary, and exactly correctly coded proteins in the human body?

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its provenâ€"its knownâ€"causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
â€" A. I. Oparin

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :

As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.

Objection:  There are literally billions of stars, with billions of planets in positions that would support life, there are countless scenarios on said planets happening, even right now, that could lead to life and that has been happening for 13.7 billion years on billions upon billions of planets.
Answer: Paul Davies, the fifth miracle page 53:
There are indeed a lot of starsâ€"at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 101^40 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 07, 2017, 08:53:09 PM
You're just another coward trying to pretend to be a religious bully.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

The Internet  is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the  repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.    Usually, the tool of the loser of a debate will resort to insult, [Arostotle]  Basic rule of thumb  : When someone with oposit views  starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The  proponent of intelligent design / creationism  just won the debate.  Namecalling serves no useful purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or acusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. - Do also not  try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. )  or ask for my credentials.  It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 08, 2017, 10:58:41 AM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 10:34:17 AMThe Internet  is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the  repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.
You have at least 8 of those on lock yourself.  And telling you to go back to school is the inevitable conclusion any normal person comes to when they encounter a deluge of creationist drivel demonstrating such a poor grasp of evolution that it's obvious that not a single day was spent actually studying the topic.

Case in point:

QuoteThe protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/understanding-how-fireflies-evolved-their-glow/

Mount Improbable has a much more gentle slope than advertised.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 08, 2017, 05:23:13 PM
I see you like your cherrypicked authors who write long and hard about how abiogenesis is a theory in crisis. What is the impact index of your little group? I also notice how your authors harp on how modern proteins (hemoglobin) and their genes are impossible to come about through chance alone. Yeah, no shit, but that's not what's claimed. These proteins were evolved through millions of years of repeated trial and error that is evolution. That's why they are MODERN proteins. They didn't exist at the beginning of life. They came along later, long after abiogenesis.

The first replicators were probably 20 base pairs or less. Even if only one of these sequences were able to replicate on its own (unlikely, as close relatives would also be replicators), that would mean that there would be 5 x 10^11 of these molecules in each mole of random 20-unit strands. Once you get one replicator, life climbs the ladder, one rung at a time.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 08, 2017, 05:23:13 PM
These proteins were evolved through millions of years of repeated trial and error that is evolution. That's why they are MODERN proteins. They didn't exist at the beginning of life. They came along later, long after abiogenesis.

ahahahahahahaha.. NO KIDDING ??!!!

The heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1322-the-amazing-hemoglobin-molecule#1859

Heme biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 8 highly specific steps, of which 6 steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.
The pathway must go all the way through, otherwise heme is not synthesized.
Therefore, the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.


Questions:
What good would there be, if the pathway would go only up to the 7th step ? none
What good would there be, if the pathway would go all the way through the 8th step ? Heme would be produced , BUT :
What good for survival would there be for Heme by its own, if not fully embedded in the globin proteins? none.
What good would there be for red bloodcells without hemoglobin, transporting oxygen to the cells in the body ? none, transporting oxygen is essential for the whole process. I conclude therefore that the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex, and could not have evolved upon mutation and natural selection.

I mentioned that some enzymes have to be imported into the mitochondrion. These enzymes contain special protein sequences called targeting signals that direct them to the right place. So the next question: is globin targeted to the mitochondrion? No - it is synthesised on ribosomes, attached to the Golgi apparatus in the cytoplasm and it stays there. Some of the haem made in the mitochondrion is used by mitochondrial proteins called cytochromes, but the rest is exported back outside where it can attach to the globin protein. Have a look at these Wikipedia pages: heme and porphyrin, for some more details. Porphyrins, by the way, are intermediates in haem synthesis that also have the tetrapyrrole structure.

Researchers have done experiments in which they synthesised globin protein chains to see at what point the haem attached. It can attach when about 80-90 amino acids have emerged from the ribosome - in other words, it attaches to the "nascent chain" as the protein is being synthesised. One of the mysteries that we don't fully understand is how the haemoglobin assembles itself properly - so as it has 2 alpha chains and 2 beta chains each with a haemoglobin attached.

Question : for what reason would evolution try to assemble the heme to the globin ? what survival advantage would there be provided by a globin without the heme ? and what advantage of the heme without the globin ?

How did gene duplication, followed by random mutations and natural selection figure out to produze  the  PBG deaminase enzyme,, used as far as science knows, exclusively in this path way, so no co-option possible ? -  that would produce this complex reaction, ( which is just the third in the whole pathway of total 8 steps )  consisting in 4 highly coordenated , ordered, sequenced and complex steps, forming a geometrically correct tetrapyrrole, and repeat the first two steps in total 4 times ? How did evolution be capable to producte  the right genetic code and informational sequence ?  How did evolution figure out to program  the release of the hydroxymethylbilane enzyme at the right time, after the product, the linear hydroxymethylbilane was catalized, and  while releasing four ammonia molecules ?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 08, 2017, 08:06:44 PM
Nothing is irreducibly complex. The less complex version just has a different function/behavior.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Mermaid on January 08, 2017, 08:37:55 PM
Meh. Facts don't matter to you, apparently. Sucks to be you.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 08, 2017, 10:44:40 PM
Mods?  I call copyapasta troll.  He just repeats the wall of text he stole from somewhere else rather than engage.  And is ignoring direct questions to keep up with that which he has been told is factually inaccurate.  Can't even hide behind incomplete knowledge anymore, now he's a deliberate liar.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 09, 2017, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 08, 2017, 08:06:44 PM
Nothing is irreducibly complex. The less complex version just has a different function/behavior.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

what function has a software without the hardware ? what good does a hardware without the software ? please explain
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: challengeatheism on January 09, 2017, 06:03:25 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2017, 10:44:40 PM
Mods?  I call copyapasta troll.  He just repeats the wall of text he stole from somewhere else rather than engage.  And is ignoring direct questions to keep up with that which he has been told is factually inaccurate.  Can't even hide behind incomplete knowledge anymore, now he's a deliberate liar.

can't refute my claims. Calls me a troll.

So you just reveal you are not honest, and give not a chance new evidence presented to you to acknowledge.

Noted.

Btw. the study of hemoglobin, and that the pathway to synthesize it, IS MINE.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 07:32:47 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 08, 2017, 08:06:44 PM
Nothing is irreducibly complex. The less complex version just has a different function/behavior.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Complex to humans, but not to ubermenschen.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2017, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 09, 2017, 06:03:25 AM
can't refute my claims. Calls me a troll.
A troll is the best of two things you could be.  If anything, he just gave you a complement.

QuoteBtw. the study of hemoglobin, and that the pathway to synthesize it, IS MINE.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/youre_serious_futurama.gif)
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2017, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 09, 2017, 06:03:25 AM
can't refute my claims. Calls me a troll.

So you just reveal you are not honest, and give not a chance new evidence presented to you to acknowledge.

Noted.

Btw. the study of hemoglobin, and that the pathway to synthesize it, IS MINE.

I did refute it, troll, and you just went out and copied irrelevant text and tried to change the subject -- you've already demonstrated an inability to handle rational thought, but you could at least have a whack at original.

It has been explained to you that the type of abiogenesis you're arguing against is not the actual theory, but your own made up strawman.  And you stick by your strawman, which means you are deliberately lying now.

And let's see your patent on hemoglobin synthesis.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 09, 2017, 12:59:43 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 09, 2017, 06:01:54 AM
what function has a software without the hardware ? what good does a hardware without the software ? please explain
The universe has plenty of examples of "hardware without software." You get Vitamin D from one such example every day, assuming you go outside.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 09, 2017, 10:20:49 PM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
ahahahahahahaha.. NO KIDDING ??!!!

The heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1322-the-amazing-hemoglobin-molecule#1859

Heme biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 8 highly specific steps, of which 6 steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.
The pathway must go all the way through, otherwise heme is not synthesized.
Therefore, the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.
Irreducible complexity ≠ impossible to evolve. You've been told this before.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
Questions:
What good would there be, if the pathway would go only up to the 7th step ? none
Wrong. The seventh step would still produce some chemical product. Just because YOU can't think of a use for this product does not mean it didn't have one.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
What good would there be, if the pathway would go all the way through the 8th step ? Heme would be produced , BUT :
What good for survival would there be for Heme by its own, if not fully embedded in the globin proteins? none.
The heme group is actually a cofactor to a whole suite of proteins, including cytochrome c oxidase, which is ancient. So, yeah, heme is of use outside the globulins.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
What good would there be for red bloodcells without hemoglobin, transporting oxygen to the cells in the body ? none,
Don't be stupid. Either blood cells evolved after hemoglobin, or there was a utility for them prior. For instance, they would provide bulk in case that the blood needed to clot.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
I conclude therefore that the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex, and could not have evolved upon mutation and natural selection.
Well, good thing that you're not the authority on evolutionary history, isn't it? Also, being that hemoglobin and the like evolved AFTER the start of life, pointing out that hemoglobin couldn't have been poofed into existence is rather moot.


Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
I mentioned that some enzymes have to be imported into the mitochondrion. These enzymes contain special protein sequences called targeting signals that direct them to the right place. So the next question: is globin targeted to the mitochondrion? No - it is synthesised on ribosomes, attached to the Golgi apparatus in the cytoplasm and it stays there. Some of the haem made in the mitochondrion is used by mitochondrial proteins called cytochromes, but the rest is exported back outside where it can attach to the globin protein. Have a look at these Wikipedia pages: heme and porphyrin, for some more details. Porphyrins, by the way, are intermediates in haem synthesis that also have the tetrapyrrole structure.
Don't you realize that you have shot yourself in the foot by putting this forth? It describes a utility for the heme group that is not attached to the globulins. Indeed, it seems that spare heme groups were appropriated for globulin synthesis.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
Researchers have done experiments in which they synthesised globin protein chains to see at what point the haem attached. It can attach when about 80-90 amino acids have emerged from the ribosome - in other words, it attaches to the "nascent chain" as the protein is being synthesised. One of the mysteries that we don't fully understand is how the haemoglobin assembles itself properly - so as it has 2 alpha chains and 2 beta chains each with a haemoglobin attached.

Question : for what reason would evolution try to assemble the heme to the globin ? what survival advantage would there be provided by a globin without the heme ? and what advantage of the heme without the globin ?
You've already answered the last question yourself. Or rather, you copypasted it into your response without realizing that it does, indeed, state a purpose for the heme group prior to the development of the globulins.

As to the rest of it, what use are globulins without heme groups? Ask pumpkins, or indeed plants like peas and lentils. Vicilin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicilin) has no heme groups, but it does have a use â€" being a storage protein. This makes sense, given their high molecular weight. Given that their function here is to be packaged amino acids, their actual sequence are allowed to be highly variable. It would be surprising that some wouldn't develop cites that would bind to heme groups just by accident.

The thing is, the heme group bonds to oxygen wether or not it's in a protein. The protein provides a larger handle for those groups to bind to and pack away into neat bundles, and pin them down in the cytoplasm, and provide a bit of control and sense for their function. Each of these aspects could evolve on their own in any order.

Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
How did gene duplication, followed by random mutations and natural selection figure out to produze  the  PBG deaminase enzyme,, used as far as science knows, exclusively in this path way, so no co-option possible ? -  that would produce this complex reaction, ( which is just the third in the whole pathway of total 8 steps )  consisting in 4 highly coordenated , ordered, sequenced and complex steps, forming a geometrically correct tetrapyrrole, and repeat the first two steps in total 4 times ? How did evolution be capable to producte  the right genetic code and informational sequence ?  How did evolution figure out to program  the release of the hydroxymethylbilane enzyme at the right time, after the product, the linear hydroxymethylbilane was catalized, and  while releasing four ammonia molecules ?
You ask these questions because you don't want to understand, and you have demonstrated again and again through this thread. You characterize the four executions of this reaction as somehow "highly coordinated" and "ordered" and having "complex steps". No. It's just a polymerization step repeated four times, and is hardly chemical voodoo. And, because this growing tail takes up actual volume, when it grows long enough it simply crowds out further subunits from polymerizing to the tail until hydroxymethylbilane is cleaved off, and the enzyme begins again.

You're making the action of the PBG deaminase enzyme sound a lot more mysterious and complicated than it actually is.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 09, 2017, 11:39:38 PM
You know a new user is doing a bad job if they're 24 posts in and only have 1 like from Baruch
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 09, 2017, 11:44:54 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 09, 2017, 12:59:43 PM
The universe has plenty of examples of "hardware without software." You get Vitamin D from one such example every day, assuming you go outside.
I just (finally) read through his posts, and I can assure you that he lives under a rock.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 09, 2017, 11:53:53 PM
@challengeatheism
[mod]It seems like you aren't capable of anything other than copying and pasting your nonsense. When confronted, you pigheadedly disagree and copy/paste more nonsense.
I also asked you to make an intro thread to introduce yourself and to read the rules, which in the intro thread, you just told us to read about you in the link you provided.

Since you aren't holding a discussion and just copy pasting, you can continue your crap-tastic means of trying to convince us that you know what you're talking about in the section we dedicate to people like you.

Enjoy your stay in Purgatory.
[/mod]

If anyone would actually like to continue arguing with this guy and you don't have Purgatory access, message me or one of the mods and we'll let you have access
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 10, 2017, 01:59:11 AM
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 08, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Is Intelligent Design based on gaps of knowledge and ignorance?

It is the lastest adaptation of theism to modern period. ID itself is a reaction to scientific progress. Without the process of the scientific progress in the 20th century, it wouldn't exist.

Why don't you just accept the traditional theistic approach yourself and go with creator did it, but desire to go with some sort of a more complicated adaptation of it?
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 10, 2017, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 09, 2017, 11:53:53 PM
If anyone would actually like to continue arguing with this guy and you don't have Purgatory access, message me or one of the mods and we'll let you have access
Aw.  And I was just about to do a text analysis to measure how much original content there was versus how much copypaste and plagiarism, and then of how much of the original material was grammatically correct.  An initial review suggests both numbers are less than 10%.

Funny thing is, the copied stuff isn't that much better off in terms of spelling and grammar.  Well, we already knew they weren't rocket scientists or brain surgeons.  Or brain scientists or rocket surgeons, for that matter.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 10, 2017, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 10, 2017, 12:21:07 PM
Aw.  And I was just about to do a text analysis to measure how much original content there was versus how much copypaste and plagiarism, and then of how much of the original material was grammatically correct.  An initial review suggests both numbers are less than 10%.

Funny thing is, the copied stuff isn't that much better off in terms of spelling and grammar.  Well, we already knew they weren't rocket scientists or brain surgeons.  Or brain scientists or rocket surgeons, for that matter.
So you want me to bring him back?

Sent from your mom.

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: trdsf on January 10, 2017, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 10, 2017, 01:14:22 PM
So you want me to bring him back?

Nah.  He's where he belongs.  Though I may deploy the text analysis sooner, next time we have an infestation.
Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 10, 2017, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 10, 2017, 03:46:12 PM
Nah.  He's where he belongs.  Though I may deploy the text analysis sooner, next time we have an infestation.
Lol I can always give you troll cage access, if you want to confront him with that

Sent from your mom.

Title: Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
Post by: Solomon Zorn on January 10, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
Atheism: Lack of belief in gods an deities.

Challenge: "Abiogenesis is impossible."

Challenger: challengeatheism

Anaology: Because it is like a 1000 men death squad firing nd hitting a man...and intelligent design is awesome, look I can make up several other anologies to show how impossible abiogenesis is.

Reasoning presented by the challenger: "Hail Intelligent Design! Even though I don't really get what is this irreducible complexity, it looks very complex. Let's argue from ignorance. Fuck falsifiability, I dunno what it is, because I don't understand what scientific method is, so fuck it anyway. Cells are soooo complex and soooo cute, look at them, they are full of information! I am drowning in false dilemma(s) because I think this IC thing sounds cool and it looks some sort of a theory against the theory of evolution which I have no idea that that it is actualy the evolutionary sciences have been at work for a long time to make these explanations and the basic theory of evolution itself has been the crucial beginning point of modern sciences and as it constantly keeps getting confirmed right and left -which I keep benefitting every time I get sick- I have no idea the field has been far advanced and embraces everything, therefore I don't understand that by pulling something out from cell biology that I don't get, I am actually not able to challenge the theory of evolution or atheism or cup of noodles for that matter, because it is fucking meaningless. Because while one is a scientific theory, the other is an ancient greek word used to describe a neutral position of the group of people who lack the belief of gods and deities; a nonbeliever group that is consisted of every kind of people from every culture, some might have never heard the word abiogenesis, or even care about it, some might not even call themselves atheists. The cup of noodles is my only ally here. Because abiogenesis is impossible, because obviously there must be a designer and I want one and it feels cold and unsafe, I feel like there must be one."


Atheism: Lack of belief in gods and deities.


You spanked him with his own phallacies fallacies!