Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and saying that's where god is basically sums up the nature of intelligent design. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and assuming evolution did it basically sums up the nature of the belief system of evolutionary theory. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

The gaps in scientific understanding are surrounded by evidence in support of evolution. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, but much more complete than any intelligent design hypothesis. Go ahead and amaze us with your unified theory of intelligent design.

a reply to: cooperton

It formed incrementally, it didn't just all poof together at once. The experiments showed much more than what you said. What about the one that formed ribonucleotides? What is so insane and miraculous about a having numerous proteins bonding together and becoming increasingly complex over time in a environment conducive to such?

No faith needed. I treat scientific hypothesis like scientific hypothesis. A work in progress. Let them finish it, they have shown experimentally how most of it can happen. It's one thing to admit it's unproven, it's another to call it impossible or faith based when that's far from the case.

It will become a theory eventually and creationists will move the goalposts to something else unknown to latch onto. I totally get it, though. Since the attacks on evolution failed miserably, abiogenesis being wrong is like the holy grail for you guys. It's your last hope in the war against real world explanations replacing mythological ones.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

It formed incrementally, it didn't just all poof together at once. The experiments showed much more than what you said. What about the one that formed ribonucleotides? What is so insane and miraculous about a having numerous proteins bonding together and becoming increasingly complex over time in a environment conducive to such?

The most simple bacterium made by scientists contained 473 proteins. 473 proteins means 473 protein-coding genes. For all these to assemble through random chance in a primordial goo would be similar to a monkey writing a Shakespearean play Source. Note in the study that all these proteins needed to be present for the bacterium to be viable.

a reply to: cooperton

" Remember, the proteins required to even allow mutative misreads of the nucleic acid sequence cannot even exist without this 13,500 base pair protein to make ATP (and the many other necessary proteins required for metabolism and replicating nucleic acid sequences)."


So , Any Form of " Life " could not Exist without the Exact Criteria you have just suggested . Hmm , without some form of intervention by a Higher Power , Biological Life would then not have Developed Independently at All ?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know full well Creationists... or um... Intelligent Design Theorists refuse to allow the Abiogenesis and Evolution to be treated as separate theories. Is all or nothing for them.

Because how life actually started has zero bearing on how it has replicated and modified over time?

Don't know about you, but if I'm going to renovate a building I think it's important to look at the blueprints and determine where the critical load-bearing points are and other critical underlying structures because those will influence the final product. So too do we need to know how the fundamental mechanisms of life came to be because they directly influence how a single-celled organism can evolve over time into say... a butterfly.

See what I did there?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: cooperton
Hmm , without some form of intervention by a Higher Power , Biological Life would then not have Developed Independently at All ?

Simply put, the genetic code required a Coder. Looking at ATP Synthase for example, it is like a micromolecular motor assembled with various parts that allow it to create energy from an electric gradient - it even has a component called the rotor.



Yet even ATP synthase alone is useless without the other necessary protein complexes



These are only a small few of the many essential proteins necessary for the most basic cell to be viable. These proteins forming by random chance would be about as likely as a car motor forming by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

OP, I'm billing you an invoice for the time it took me to read your opinion on the subject.

If your model is correct, we are all dead. As in, you're not alive right now, and neither am I. We are impossible, by the logic you've spun. Yet... My tangible data that life does exist, does exist, regardless of YOUR observations on the molecular genetics involved.

Let me know when you get some data points for your plot. I have one big one. (Still more than zero)

Either way, genetic chains aren't unfathomable, since we can find organically beneficial compounds made by mineralogic processes, as well as little gems like amino acids present everywhere, even on comets.

We rediscovered the coelacanth millions of years after it was "dead". I would feel no surprise nor shock if we ever discover an extant sauropod, from prehistorical time periods.
Also if you are one of those people that like to cite radiocarbon inaccuracies that display some triceratops remains at 35,000-40,000 years, other options are still being reseached that could account for it. The radiocarbon decay rates used for dating can be drastically changed by environmental factors. A great example is in space, the decay rate differs by magnitudes. If some triceratops corpses were blown into orbit by an asteroid impact, then eventually attained reentry, it could reasonably provide these discrepancies. (Chicxulub could have launched Mount Everest into orbit. I've done the math on that before.)

You may be almost 100% right about the proteins not forming properly. However even if you are 99.99999999% right, our Universe is a giant probability machine, and the .00000001% case WILL exist. It can easily be accommodated in astronomical and probabilistic terms.

Let's take a look at the random formation of something akin to the life you're describing.

Let's say you have a pure mineral crystal structure, maybe something like diamond, but lots of crystals would work just fine.
In the uniform lattices of a high quality crystal, matter that interacts or passes through, will be shaped with the same exact cookie cutter.

So, if the master mold of life abiogenesis every existed, even once, it would have done this process to enough of this material that their minor similarities or minor differences allowed them to interact with one another, minus the protein requirement. A uniform structure to normalize organic compounds could potentially sub in for the low level proteins because after all, they mostly commit physical shape changing action. So organic particles passing through a uniform filter could undergo the same process by outside physical force, not internal physiochemical reactions.

Those permutations occurring over a few hundred million years, I would imagine can make a proto-Darwinism. The compounds that aid in their own replication would gain market share faster than the dumb no reaction molecules, and they would outcompete for raw energy or raw material, passively.

to be continued

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Because how life actually started has zero bearing on how it has replicated and modified over time?

Bingo.

Don't know about you, but if I'm going to renovate a building I think it's important to look at the blueprints and determine where the critical load-bearing points are and other critical underlying structures because those will influence the final product. So too do we need to know how the fundamental mechanisms of life came to be because they directly influence how a single-celled organism can evolve over time into say... a butterfly.

See what I did there?

Yeah, and unfortunately the analogy fails at its most basic level. Evolution happens because DNA does not perfectly copy itself. It has nothing to do with how the first life came together, nor is it contingent upon that.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

It formed incrementally, it didn't just all poof together at once. The experiments showed much more than what you said. What about the one that formed ribonucleotides? What is so insane and miraculous about a having numerous proteins bonding together and becoming increasingly complex over time in a environment conducive to such?

The most simple bacterium made by scientists contained 473 proteins. 473 proteins means 473 protein-coding genes. For all these to assemble through random chance in a primordial goo would be similar to a monkey writing a Shakespearean play Source. Note in the study that all these proteins needed to be present for the bacterium to be viable.

And you KNOW this to be the requirement for proto RNA?

Simply put, the genetic code required a Coder. Looking at ATP Synthase for example, it is like a micromolecular motor assembled with various parts that allow it to create energy from an electric gradient - it even has a component called the rotor.

Who cares what it looks like. That has no bearing on how it formed initially.

These are only a small few of the many essential proteins necessary for the most basic cell to be viable. These proteins forming by random chance would be about as likely as a car motor forming by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

That's one of the oldest fallacies in the book.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: cooperton
Hmm , without some form of intervention by a Higher Power , Biological Life would then not have Developed Independently at All ?

Simply put, the genetic code required a Coder. Looking at ATP Synthase for example, it is like a micromolecular motor assembled with various parts that allow it to create energy from an electric gradient - it even has a component called the rotor.

Yet even ATP synthase alone is useless without the other necessary protein complexes

These are only a small few of the many essential proteins necessary for the most basic cell to be viable. These proteins forming by random chance would be about as likely as a car motor forming by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

"I don't understand how this could happen" is not a logical argument for creationism. And you have yet to explain or demonstrate a viable theory of creationism either.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and saying that's where god is basically sums up the nature of intelligent design. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and assuming evolution did it basically sums up the nature of the belief system of evolutionary theory. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

The gaps in scientific understanding are surrounded by evidence in support of evolution. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, but much more complete than any intelligent design hypothesis. Go ahead and amaze us with your unified theory of intelligent design.

All the valid evidence supports the very opposite - that after finding all of the overwhelming evidence, which comprises over quadrillion samples, and millions more every day, now, and forever after now - the absolute fact, the blatantly obvious evidence here - shows that evolution is complete garbage, and to support it, while quadrillions of examples prove them wrong, is not some sort of mistake.

Do you understand the concept of 'scientific method'?

To seek, and study, and follow, all of the available evidence - no matter where, or how, or what, the evidence is?

That's why we accepted science in the first place - finding all of the evidence, first, and following this evidence to gain more knowledge, and help us gain more knowledge, or to help make our lives better, etc.

Science has benefits. But science is mostly used for evils, and now, it's not required to BE an actual science.


Let's suppose I had a theory, which said humans once had wings, and flew among the birds. And I said it is based on all the evidence...

My evidence was all, or nearly all, found by me, and some people I hired, to help me find odd-looking rocks, or whatever else that would help to support my 'theory'. I hired 'experts', and this was how I verified it as 'evidence'.


Same way it works for crap like evolution, or gravity, which are held up as if they were 'facts', without a shred of proof.


Evolution is asserting that all species on Earth have changed, and will always change, into another, entirely different, species....

Obviously, scientists should always consider all of the evidence, and on that basis, alone, may be able to present a valid, provable claim.


All of the evidence happens to be millions of different species living today on Earth, and every generation before, and every generation in future, which are/will be, the very same, exact species, as always.

These scientists have never once considered quadrillion species that have lived on Earth, over thousands of years. No record of any changing species, at all.

What is the point of claiming all species change into other species, when the overwhelming evidence proves the claim is utter nonsense?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: cooperton
Hmm , without some form of intervention by a Higher Power , Biological Life would then not have Developed Independently at All ?

Simply put, the genetic code required a Coder. Looking at ATP Synthase for example, it is like a micromolecular motor assembled with various parts that allow it to create energy from an electric gradient - it even has a component called the rotor.

Yet even ATP synthase alone is useless without the other necessary protein complexes

These are only a small few of the many essential proteins necessary for the most basic cell to be viable. These proteins forming by random chance would be about as likely as a car motor forming by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

"I don't understand how this could happen" is not a logical argument for creationism. And you have yet to explain or demonstrate a viable theory of creationism either.

Your group says evolution is a separate issue from creation - you seem to be mixing both issues together, no?....


A logical argument is based on evidence, not a belief, etc.


You seem to believe that a theory of life starting from a random primordial stew is actually a viable theory?

It would be hard to match the pure idiocy, and ignorance, of that theory, if anything..


Random acts don't build a car, or a table, or a computer, etc. Humans can build them, with their intelligence, and knowledge, however.

It would still be a random action to have chemicals reacting to other chemicals, which form a by-product. As metals can mix together, into another form... as we know.

There is nothing we can mix together, that creates life, or anything even near it. We have mixed every potion on Earth in trying to make life, over and over again. Life is not about finding some 'magical potion'.

a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves. We are built with natural chemical reactions. Nobody is putting us together piece by piece. We are created by a naturally occurring cascade of chemical reactions that occur when a sperm meets an egg. These processes can be observed and manipulated in many predictable ways as our knowledge and computational technology increases. Soon, our abilities will be great enough to answer the few questions we don’t have yet.


It can be demonstrated that molecules form from completely random interactions, and in many various combinations, but there are a limited amount of elements. These elements interact with each other in very predictable and consistent ways. They do not interact in unexpected ways, and both of these points are very important to understand.

Chemical reactions are natural processes that happen all the time. It has been demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life form naturally all around us, even in extreme conditions. What these random blocks lack, is computational ability and a pattern to follow. When we look at the progression of the simplest forms of life we can observe today,(including, but not limited to fossils) all the way up to us, the most complex form of life we know, there is a clear lineage in form, in gene relation, in gene expression, and change over time.

There is clearly a language in the forming of life. If you manipulate that information, you can change the way that life forms, how it looks, how it developes over time, or if it is viable at all. This language is clearly the language of chemistry. With very predictable outcomes that follow physical laws.

You are made of molecules, that are otherwise lifeless. The cascade of chemical reactions that brought your brain into being, is still ongoing. One day it will run it’s course, and you will no longer have a brain to produce your conscience. And your molecules will be eaten and used for fuel to feed some other bit of life.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves.

Yes meaning humans are even more complex than cars because of their ability to reproduce.

Imagine a car self-assembling, and then also having the ability to reproduce - that is the assertion of evolutionary theory.

a reply to: turbonium1

You seem to believe that a theory of life starting from a random primordial stew is actually a viable theory?

Please post a citation where a credible scientist ever said that. Waiting...............

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves.

Yes meaning humans are even more complex than cars because of their ability to reproduce.

Imagine a car self-assembling, and then also having the ability to reproduce - that is the assertion of evolutionary theory.

Maybe cars are unnatural and that's why intelligent human design is required to manipulate the laws of physics and fabricate non living machines.

Comparing a car to a human being to mock evolutionary synthesis is a straw man fallacy, much like comparing creationism to pastafarianism to illustrate how ridiculous religion is.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves. We are built with natural chemical reactions. Nobody is putting us together piece by piece. We are created by a naturally occurring cascade of chemical reactions that occur when a sperm meets an egg. These processes can be observed and manipulated in many predictable ways as our knowledge and computational technology increases. Soon, our abilities will be great enough to answer the few questions we don’t have yet.


It can be demonstrated that molecules form from completely random interactions, and in many various combinations, but there are a limited amount of elements. These elements interact with each other in very predictable and consistent ways. They do not interact in unexpected ways, and both of these points are very important to understand.

Chemical reactions are natural processes that happen all the time. It has been demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life form naturally all around us, even in extreme conditions. What these random blocks lack, is computational ability and a pattern to follow. When we look at the progression of the simplest forms of life we can observe today,(including, but not limited to fossils) all the way up to us, the most complex form of life we know, there is a clear lineage in form, in gene relation, in gene expression, and change over time.

There is clearly a language in the forming of life. If you manipulate that information, you can change the way that life forms, how it looks, how it developes over time, or if it is viable at all. This language is clearly the language of chemistry. With very predictable outcomes that follow physical laws.

You are made of molecules, that are otherwise lifeless. The cascade of chemical reactions that brought your brain into being, is still ongoing. One day it will run it’s course, and you will no longer have a brain to produce your conscience. And your molecules will be eaten and used for fuel to feed some other bit of life.

What woodcarver just explained here is how we study cause and effect until we have a reliable reproducible framework of facts and observations spanning across a dozen fields that allows us to find and investigate footprints from eras that ended millions or billions of years ago. Obviously this is not an exact practice but a very rigorous one, where it can take a lifetime to answer just one little question to the satisfaction of experts. But the contention always seems to be, what puzzle are we supposed to solve? What answer is the most important? And I think we learn more from THAT question than any of these silly evolution vs creation debates. What answer is the most useful to our existence. It's a philosophical ink blot test.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves. This is the key to diversity and allows changes to occur faster than other kinds of reproduction.

Yes meaning humans are even more complex than cars because of their ability to reproduce.

Imagine a car self-assembling, and then also having the ability to reproduce - that is the assertion of evolutionary theory.

Humans self assemble with the information they gleen from each parent.

a reply to: cooperton

Any way you look at it, chemistry is how life functions. Do you agree?

a reply to: TzarChasm

"I don't understand how this could happen" is not a logical argument for creationism. And you have yet to explain or demonstrate a viable theory of creationism either.

There's not a single pro-creationism poster on this board who would DARE give the true definition of creationism. That's because a "viable theory of creationism" is an embarrassment to any intelligent person.

I won't mention the fact that creationism has no credible science to back it up - that's been covered a million times.

They will continue to post psychobabble, however.