Abiogenesis

[John]

How does life arise from non-life? How did all the amino acids line up in the right order, in the right amounts, at the same time, in the same place, etc.? How did all the DNA create itself by accident? How did all these chemicals abruptly form to life and what would make the non hearing to form an ear, the no seeing form an eye, all the organs, etc.?

[chefranden]

There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis

[♦ ficino ♦]

Dear John,

 

Are you new to this website? Welcome, if you've just come on here. There have been many discussion about abiogenesis. Although the server was changed twice in recent months, there is a lot in archived material. Click around and explore this site. (I'm not a scientist, so I'll refrain from stating any views on the topic myself.) There is also a lot of discussion on Secular Web/Internet Infidels.

[MrSpooky]

How does life arise from non-life? How did all the amino acids line up in the right order, in the right amounts, at the same time, in the same place, etc.? How did all the DNA create itself by accident? How did all these chemicals abruptly form to life

 

This is abiogenesis.

 

 

 

and what would make the non hearing to form an ear, the no seeing form an eye, all the organs, etc.?

 

This is NOT.

[Thurisaz]

How does life arise from non-life? [...]

 

 

Read.

[Mr. Neil]

How does life arise from non-life? How did all the amino acids line up in the right order, in the right amounts, at the same time, in the same place, etc.?

Answer: It didn't happen at the same time in the same place. Why did you load the question like that? Why do you assume that abiogenesis is the belief that DNA just suddenly fell into place and formed a cell around itself in a single event. No one thinks that!

 

[John]

I brought this up again due to the fact that I have a few questions.

 

MrSpooky or anyone, what produced sugars in the Urey-Miller experiments, since nucleic acids are difficult to produce because they contain the sugar ribose? Also, how does RNA self-replicate?

[Ouroboros]

and for the record I do think this "force" will at some point be scientifically quantifiable because it's a force of nature.  I don't know why the concept of a conscious universe disturbs so many people...to my mind it's no more supernatural than my own consciousness.  The new physics is discovering everything is interconnected, bizarre shit happens with subatomic particles just by observing them.  Move over newtonian physics...there are newer and broader ways of viewing the world.

 

I don't think it's disturbing. There is a great chance that there is more to everything, beyond our current understanding of the physical world. It's all about keeping an open mind. And that, I think, is the real difference between religion and science.

 

Religious: new findings -> discarded if not fit with Bible

Non-religious: new findings -> adjust current theory

[Mr. Neil]

My only problem with that is that if a god is simply a force of nature, then it's not a god. It'd be just another being that exists without the necessity of creation.

 

I mean, it's hypothetical that there could be a being that came into existence via natural phenomenon, which then created our world, but it'd be significant less special than the normal definition of a god that we normally think of, and certainly no more special than we are.

 

It would seem to be that there'd be no reason to accept that such a being exists.

 

[Ouroboros]

My only problem with that is that if a god is simply a force of nature, then it's not a god.  It'd be just another being that exists without the necessity of creation.

 

I mean, it's hypothetical that there could be a being that came into existence via natural phenomenon, which then created our world, but it'd be significant less special than the normal definition of a god that we normally think of, and certainly no more special than we are.

 

That is true.

 

But that's why there is so many versions of religion, and also deism, naturalism, pantheism and so on. At least the latter ones don't require a government to reinforce moral code in the law book because some holy book declares so.

 

I think most people need a crutch, and some are lucky like us that don't. But for the people that do need something to believe, I rather have them believe a less violent and aggressive religion than Christianity and Islam.

 

So I keep an open mind, and I won't reject anyone’s belief, as long as the believer knows it's based on emotional grounds and not rational. You and I are lucky MrNeil, because we have minds that don’t need the band aids.

 

But a lot of people still need a belief in a concept of a god or higher entity or consciousness. And there is nothing that can disprove it either. Occam's Razor is not a proof in itself, it only states that the most parsimonious argument is usually the correct one. So we can opt to keep an open mind, beyond what science can tell us today.

 

It would seem to be that there'd be no reason to accept that such a being exists.

 

 

There is not rational reason, but there are emotional reasons, and we can’t exclude those since we are biological machines depending on emotions. Granted that some need it a lot less than others, but still our subconscious are driven by them.

[Ouroboros]

I don't NEED a belief in a concept of a higher consciousness...I just can't conceptualize it any other way. (in light of the sheer bizarreness of shit that is out there I just can't see it. 

 

But isn’t that a form of Need, even though it’s not a higher emotional desire, it’s still a form of subconscious need to believe in something. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it is wrong in any way. I’ve met people that jump from one religion to the next, like an addiction, they just can’t let go of a concept of a higher power, and they try so had to find it, but every religion fails to meet up to make sense to them.

 

I think as humans we have a built in need for explanations for the unknown, somewhat driven out of fear and confusion. That is what is driving both theologians and scientists both. They just take different approaches. Scientist wants to find absolute truths that can be replicated and proven by logic and reasoning, while theologians do by emotional pious arguments. And it’s not wrong as long as it doesn’t become a political tool to force people either way. That’s the beauty of the constitution, to allow both; at least it is for now.

[MrSpooky]

As long as it's an honest inquiry, you'll brook no snappiness or smarminess from me.

 

Or at least, a minimal amount.

 

 

 

The Power of Natural Selection

 

The human brain/mind is a funny thing, really. Its makeup is supposed to allow us to gather and refine information to come across facts, but the shortcuts it takes in its construction is messy enough to be an engineer’s nightmare. Is it powerful? Yes, it is. Is it beautiful? Yes, it is. Is it incredible enough to be designed? Eeeeeeh…

 

From Wason’s selection task to the studies of cognitive dissonance, cognitive science has demonstrated thoroughly that while capable of making and refining rational ideas, the human brain/mind was not constructed to be rational itself. While I could go on writing a paper about this topic, the point I want to make in the beginning is this: because it is flawed, the human mind often over or underestimates things. Relying on intuition to make conclusive arguments is worse than flipping a coin to determine fact from fiction.

 

When Marilyn Vos Savant published the Monty Hall problem, she threw much of America into an uproar. The problem went like this:

 

A game show host presents you with three doors. Behind two doors are goats, behind one is a million dollars. You pick door number one, and Monty opens door number two to reveal a goat behind it. Which gives you a greater chance of getting the million dollars, staying with door one, switching your choice to pick door three, or are they both equal in probability?

 

While many would intuitively say that it doesn’t matter which door you take (the chance is 50-50), Marilyn surprised all of America with the answer: switching to door three would give you a much better chance of winning the prize.

 

Poor Ms. Savant was quite surprised at the response. Many wrote her angry letters. Many felt smug at thinking that Marilyn could make such a big screw-up. Even a couple math professors (apparently not very good ones) wrote her angry letters.

 

But Ms. Savant was right. Her explanation of the problem was simple enough, but the public just didn’t catch on. But later on she outlined a fuller mathematical proof, while in classrooms across America students did statistic experiments. And they proved Marilyn right. And the math professors that so quickly denounced her wrote back sheepish apologies.

 

Think of it this way: instead of three doors there are a million doors. You pick door number one, and doors 2 through 999,999 are revealed to contain goats. Now door one was a one-in-a-million chance of being the prize-winning door. If you switch, you are effectively switching to a statistic alternative that is directly opposite yours, now that everything else has been revealed: door 1,000,000 has a 999,999/1,000,000 chance of being the prizewinning door. That is, a 99.9999% chance of a win.

 

Now that I’ve made that exhaustive speech, here is the relevant point: human minds are terrible at processing probability, especially without training. Even trained minds can be fooled. And sometimes only direct experimentation can reveal the true nature behind things.

 

This now moves into the relevant evolutionary biological point: natural selection. Many mistakenly attribute anatomical complexity to “random processes.” While it is true that we organisms can mate randomly and experience genetic mutations randomly, the layman ignores a crucial point: an organism is also defined by its interaction with its environment.

 

Because the environment does not exhibit changes in the same manner that living things do, the environment places a certain semi-constant pressure against the random mating of a population. As a result, patterns crop up.

 

The most popular example by far is the bacterial growth plate one. Let’s grow a bunch of bacteria of a single species on a large plate. Now, let’s apply an antibiotic. Bacteria can vary here and there due to mutations, plasmids, etc. As a result, there is a chance that a bacterium in a population is resistant to that particular antibiotic (let’s say, ampicillin). All other bacteria die off. What remains? Why, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, of course. That single bacterium will self-replicate and form a new colony of bacteria that is ampicillin-resistant. The bacteria population has, effectively, evolved.

 

Yeah, I know, duh.

 

However, many argue that yes, while an external selective pressure can change the gene pool of a population, it cannot create such complexity in higher organisms. While this skepticism sounds intuitively plausible, again, it is dangerous ground to tread, as it is a judgment of statistics by intuition rather than by deduction.

 

There is a problem, of course. First, the probabilistic mechanics of a population is difficult to quantify, and second, the rate of morphological change in higher organisms usually (usually!) is far too slow for humans to notice in the span of 150 years or so that evolutionary biology has been around. Thus, just as the grade-school children analyzing Marilyn Vos Savant’s claim about the Monty Hall problem, we use a simulation.

 

Note that the phrase “methinks it is like a monkey” is 28 characters long… a 28-character long string has 1.2 x 10^40 possible combinations. If a computer can produce a BILLION random strings each second, then a BILLION computers would take over 190,000,000,000,000 years to get a good chance of guessing the correct string randomly… longer than the age of the universe. A nigh-impossible feat! (feel free to double-check my calculations. Remember that this particular version of Dawkins’ program doesn’t use all ASCII characters, though. Just the 26 letters and a single space).

 

But if we institute a relatively simple mutation algorithm (each newly produced string has only ONE character randomly changed) and a simple selection mechanism (allow the single string in the population closest to the target phrase, “methinks it is like a monkey” to be the parent of the next generation) the results are astonishing.

 

A population of only 50 strings took a mere 93 generations to produce the phrase “methinks it is like a monkey,” on the first trial, less than four seconds! Multiple trials yielded the result in 90 to 300 generations. A larger population of 100 strings will give the answer in only 60 to 70 generations.

 

While the genomes of even simple bacteria are much much longer and reproduction rates are also much much slower, one must also remember that our population sizes are often much larger, and we have much longer spans of time to work in.

Please go to the following web address to see a natural selection simulator so you can play with it yourself:

 

http://www.cs.laurentian.ca/badams/evoluti...onApplet11.html

 

Natural selection can be pretty powerful. Much more so than we’d normally expect. Indeed, engineers often use programs based on random construction algorithms with a selective mechanism to design more efficient circuits: this is an instance where evolutionary mechanisms of guided probability exceeds the power of careful planning. Thus, while many initially are skeptical of selection as the sole source of all evolutionary development, one must remember that this is due to man’s inability to process probability accurately from intuition. Just as the average human is fooled by the Monty Hall problem, the average human is fooled by the deceptively powerful ability of a selective process.

 

So let’s apply this to biology.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis: Life From Non-Life

 

People often mistake evolution (the production of new species and the change of certain populations) with abiogenesis (“life” from “non-life”). Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but evolutionary mechanisms can still explain it by providing a model.

 

The common model of abiogenesis is this: Amino acids are formed from simple chemical processes using only some water, minerals, and energy (heat, lightning, radiation). The amino acids eventually, out of mere chance, eventually chain up to form proteins. These proteins, out of mere chance, eventually chain up to form a fully functional bacteria.

 

But this common model of abiogenesis is wrong. No evolutionary biologist supports this mechanism, despite what we see in Star Trek. It is due to this reason that many find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life difficult to fathom, that there exists a certain “leap of faith” between “life” and “non-life.” Some Intelligent Design supporters have likened the process to a tornado striking a junk heap and arranging a perfectly functional 747. But this analogy, while quite good at explaining the fallacies of the common view model of abiogenesis, is a straw man argument. It has nothing to do with real biology or the relevant biochemistry.

 

Currently, the best model in biology goes like this: in the primordial beginnings of Earth, the condensation of water and the release of carbon-rich organic chemicals as well as nitrous elements produced a mix of simple chemicals. These simpler chemicals, with the input of energy from heat, radiation, and lightning, form more complex organic chemicals, such as nucleotides and amino acids.

 

The famous Miller-Urey experiment did this very thing. In a reconstructed “primordial environment” of water, simple minerals, chemicals, and gases in a glass jar, with the addition of small charges of electricity, the necessary chemicals of life are easily formed. While the initial gaseous environment of the Miller-Urey experiment in actuality did not ideally model the environment of primordial Earth, follow-up peer review experiments were later performed under a huge range of environments and chemical ratios that were much more accurate to our best estimates of what the earth was like long ago. All the necessary amino acids and nucleotides were easily created in such environments.

 

Now remember that natural selection is very powerful, and for natural selection to occur, one must have a self-replicating structure to act upon. Thus, at some point in time, there came the rise of a self-replicating molecule.

 

I sense the incredulity here. While this seems to be a big step from simple chemicals to self-replicating molecules, it really isn’t that big of a deal on the chemical level. Crystals self-replicate. Clays self-replicate. Very simple compounds can self-replicate, and in this manner they convey their own patterns from one generation to the next.

 

Self-replicating molecules, of course, require simpler components: materials to build themselves up from, and unfortunately there is a limit to how much raw, simple chemical “food” these molecular critters have in their oceanic environment. Thus, we have a selective mechanism. With a self-replicating structure and a selective mechanism (the limit of “food”) we have evolution.

 

As more and more chemical “food” is used up, selection would favor the molecular critters that are better suited for existence. Some molecules have catalytic components that can break down and cannibalize other molecules (and in a way become chemical “predators”) while molecules that are more stable against catalysis, such as ring structures, are favorably selected (and thus become better-protected “prey”). Remember: there is no really good definition of “life.”

 

At some point in time, our chemical critters, now self-replicating polymers, get encapsulated in a lipid bilayer membrane, like a cell. Again, this sounds incredulous. Where did these little guys get the mechanisms to form such a membrane? The best answer is: they don’t.

 

Lipid bilayer membranes are formed from phospholipid molecules, which have the special property of naturally forming lipid bilayer membranes when placed in water. It doesn’t take much for bubbles to form and encapsulate our polymer critters and protect them from other carnivorous polymer critters.

 

This structure, what we call a “probiont,” is the intermediate structure between self-replicating polymers and bacteria, the simplest form of modern life. A bacteria is simply a very complex polymer within a lipid bilayer membrane, with other functional chemicals.

 

At some point in time (where in this process is unknown), RNA had piggybacked on the self-replicating structures, forming RNA chains. Just another polymer, really, and the basis of life as we know it. RNA, a polymer quite capable of self-replication, would have eventually led to DNA with the advent of transcriptase proteins that help DNA replicate. RNA and DNA are both polymers capable of replication, but they also have the added benefit of the ability to make proteins, which give the organism more complexity.

 

So here is the mechanism in review: Simple chemicals produce organic chemicals, which can polymerize to form self-replicating polymers. These polymers were encapsulated in a lipid bilayer membrane to form a probiont, a precursor to bacteria. At some point in this process, nucleic acids piggybacked on the polymers, forming RNA, which is itself a self-replicating polymer. With RNA and a lipid bilayer membrane, and the addition of some random proteins, the first prokaryote (bacterium) was formed.

 

1) Simple chemicals produce organic chemicals (observed fact: Miller-Urey)

2) Organic chemicals can polymerize to form self-replicating polymers (observed fact: crystals, clays, RNA)

3) Self-replicating polymers become protected by a lipid bilayer membrane to form probiont (intuited fact: lipid bilayer mechanism and simple mechanical foaming)

4) Probiont gradually evolves into bacterium (scientifically supported theoretical primordial mechanism)

 

And thus, we have the gradual, step-by-step development of the first prokaryote: the first single-celled organism. Nothing magical, nothing special, nothing mysterious. The whole thing is elegantly and functionally explained by simple biochemistry: it’s that easy for life to form from non-life within a few million years.

[John]

Yes, it was an honest question MrSpooky. I did read that before since ficino told me to do a search on abiogenesis in this forum.

[MrSpooky]

Sorry, I just keep a lot of my work in a couple files on my comp.

[John]

Sorry, I just keep a lot of my work in a couple files on my comp.

 

Uh, it is right here.

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?sh...t=0entry47044

[MrSpooky]

Yes. I know.

 

I meant that I work on a lot of essays and papers about philosophy and science so that's why I re-post them in lecture-style posts. It's the only way I can explain in detail some of the answers to the most common questions.

[John]

These simpler chemicals, with the input of energy from heat, radiation, and lightning, form more complex organic chemicals, such as nucleotides and amino acids.

 

Some of the bases which nucleotides bear were made, but no nucleotides. I know that sugars made in nature are half left-handed and half right-handed, and could not have led to the shaping of working pre-RNA i.e. they must be right-handed. Also, there were no pentose sugars that formed in the Miller-Urey experiments. Isn’t that correct?

 

All the necessary amino acids and nucleotides were easily created in such environments.

 

See above. Only roughly half of the twenty amino acids from which proteins are formed were produced. The rest of the solution in the Miller-Urey experiments were for the most part tars. It was extremely diluted.

 

forming RNA, which is itself a self-replicating polymer.

 

How, could RNA replicate without the aid of protein enzymes? RNA cannot self replicate, neither catalyze the gathering of proteins. Research has carried on, but with no avail.

 

If the RNA had the info for forming all the proteins of the first cell stashed away within itself, that surely would be a lot of storage capacity!

 

Lipid bilayer membranes are formed from phospholipid molecules which have the special property of naturally forming lipid bilayer membranes when placed in water.

 

Huh, lipids are formed by cells that already exist.

[MrSpooky]

It's important to note that abiogenesis is a field that still needs a lot of work. However, it is NOT inexplicable. A great deal of research has been done that has brought the question down to quantifiable and intelligible scientific discourse.

 

 

Some of the bases which nucleotides bear were made, but no nucleotides. I know that sugars made in nature are half left-handed and half right-handed, and could not have led to the shaping of working pre-RNA i.e. they must be right-handed. Also, there were no pentose sugars that formed in the Miller-Urey experiments. Isn’t that correct?

 

The Miller-Urey experiment, I'll admit, is often taken out of context. The main significance of Miller-Urey isn't a demonstration of "how nature did it" and "how it really happened," but rather it served to show how INCREDIBLY EASY it is to make the precursors to complex organic polymers. Miller-Urey, despite its flaws, is still a landmark experiment in that it shows that nature can increase chemical complexity out of simple chemicals and a little lightning.

 

And yes, there is the "chirality problem" that we don't quite know what the basis is yet.

 

And I don't quite know about the ribose/deoxyribose thing. A sugar is pretty much just a circular ester with some hydroxides attached to em. Don't recall how to create them from scratch, it's been a few months since I used any organic chemistry.

 

 

See above. Only roughly half of the twenty amino acids from which proteins are formed were produced. The rest of the solution in the Miller-Urey experiments were for the most part tars. It was extremely diluted.

 

Maybe. I haven't looked into the exact details of the Miller-Urey experiement in full (though I do plan on reading the original paper when I find it).

 

Here's some stuff from the NCSE website. Hopefully it addresses what you're looking for.

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

 

 

How, could RNA replicate without the aid of protein enzymes? RNA cannot self replicate, neither catalyze the gathering of proteins. Research has carried on, but with no avail.

 

To my knowledge, researchers Sydney Altman, Thomas Cech, and others found that RNA is partially autocatalytic. They can be both replicators as well as enzymes in their own processes.

 

 

If the RNA had the info for forming all the proteins of the first cell stashed away within itself, that surely would be a lot of storage capacity!

 

No. All it would really "need" is some data to make a sufficient probiont.

 

Also, here's some data about the probabilities of abiogenesis.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

 

Huh, lipids are formed by cells that already exist.

 

Phospholipids are relatively simple polymers. They just consist of carbon chains (of varied length) with hydrophilic attachments. Much much simpler than proteins.

 

Look up the chemical process that can create phospholipids nonbiotically yourself... I simply don't have the time right now. But I'm pretty sure it's quite simple.

[invictus1967]

Abiogenesis is nothing more than an attempt by evolutionists to dodge a tough question that seemingly deals a fatal blow to their theory- “Where did the life come from that began the evolutionary process?”

 

Evolutionist can’t account for the actual beginning of life. Scientists have determined the odds of life beginning from random chance to be in the neighborhood of impossible. Some try to argue the validity of the odds but this group of people is getting smaller in number and their arguments are weak at best. Most in the scientific community recognize that the odds are virtually impossible if not absolutely impossible.

 

To get around this flaw in the slaw, many evolutionists refuse to include the actual start of life in the evolution vs. creation debate. They say “Oh, that is abiogenesis and it has nothing to do with evolution”.

 

Many (most?) atheist evolutionist refuse to admit the 2 go hand-in-hand. When you explain to them that without a Creator you must include abiogenesis as the foundation for evolution, they usually try to insult your intelligence because they have no rebuttal.

 

They have no idea of how life started because they denounce creation. They don’t want to admit to a Creator. Yet they are smart enough to recognize the impossible odds that must be overcome for life to generate on its own from non-life. They want to debate evolution against creation but they have no counter for the actual “creation”.

 

The sole purpose of abiogenesis is to allow the atheist evolutionist to remove the formation of life from the evolution/creation debate so they can at least continue some semblance of a debate.

 

Abiogenesis is basically an escape hatch for evolutionists.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Abiogenesis is nothing more than an attempt by evolutionists to dodge a tough question that seemingly deals a fatal blow to their theory- “Where did the life come from that began the evolutionary process?”

 

Where did your god come from, inpricktus? Answer me!

 

Evolutionist can’t account for the actual beginning of life. Scientists have determined the odds of life beginning from random chance to be in the neighborhood of impossible.

 

But not impossible. Argument from ignorance - "I can't understand it, so it can't be!" Just because your tiny brain can't comprehend it, doesn't mean shit to reality.

 

Some try to argue the validity of the odds but this group of people is getting smaller in number and their arguments are weak at best. Most in the scientific community recognize that the odds are virtually impossible if not absolutely impossible.

 

SHOW ME PROOF.

 

To get around this flaw in the slaw, many evolutionists refuse to include the actual start of life in the evolution vs. creation debate. They say “Oh, that is abiogenesis and it has nothing to do with evolution”.

 

How stupid are you?

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OR EXISTENCE.

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OR EXISTENCE.

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OR EXISTENCE.

 

Do I stutter? Am I not coming across in a perfectly clear manner?

 

Many (most?) atheist evolutionist refuse to admit the 2 go hand-in-hand. When you explain to them that without a Creator you must include abiogenesis as the foundation for evolution, they usually try to insult your intelligence because they have no rebuttal.

 

There's nothing to rebut! No argument! WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!

 

They have no idea of how life started because they denounce creation. They don’t want to admit to a Creator. Yet they are smart enough to recognize the impossible odds that must be overcome for life to generate on its own from non-life. They want to debate evolution against creation but they have no counter for the actual “creation”.

 

What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god? What created your god?

 

Do I have to repeat myself on every point here?! Why are you not getting this?! Answer my question!

 

The sole purpose of abiogenesis is to allow the atheist evolutionist to remove the formation of life from the evolution/creation debate so they can at least continue some semblance of a debate.

 

Just like your rambling bullshit is designed to make it look like you have an argument. Funny thing, that.

 

Abiogenesis is basically an escape hatch for evolutionists.

 

Just like special pleading is the escape hatch for lying creationist liars like you, inpricktus.

 

You're losing, inpricktus. You're not answering anyone, just babbling with more long-winded shit. Get a clue. Give up. Leave. Get a degree in something that matters and make something of yourself. Stop being a damn idiot!

[Mr. Neil]

Abiogenesis is nothing more than an attempt by evolutionists to dodge a tough question that seemingly deals a fatal blow to their theory- “Where did the life come from that began the evolutionary process?”

Abiogenesis is a concept that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

 

Evolutionist can’t account for the actual beginning of life.

Name one evolutionary biologist who claimed that he could. More importantly, name one that actually stated that it was the job of evolution to explain the orign of life.

 

 

Scientists have determined the odds of life beginning from random chance to be in the neighborhood of impossible.

Which scientists? What methods were they using? Did they expect life to just jump out of dust or were they working from a model of pre-life replicators?

 

 

Some try to argue the validity of the odds but this group of people is getting smaller in number and their arguments are weak at best. Most in the scientific community recognize that the odds are virtually impossible if not absolutely impossible.

Why is it that I get the feeling that you just enjoy arguing past people rather than with them?

 

 

To get around this flaw in the slaw, many evolutionists refuse to include the actual start of life in the evolution vs. creation debate. They say “Oh, that is abiogenesis and it has nothing to do with evolution”.

That's because evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of biology. Note the prefix a-, which means "without". a-bio-genesis; i.e., "beginning without life." Learn some etymology, dumbfuck.

 

Evolution is a theory to describe change within biology. You can't apply the change of biology to the beginning of biology. That would be like applying Neutonian physics to the subatomic level.

 

Wait, what am I saying!? You won't understand that analogy, because you don't understand physics either!

 

 

Many (most?) atheist evolutionist refuse to admit the 2 go hand-in-hand.

Only because you made them go hand-in-hand, because you see them both as opponents to Christianity. To someone who is not a Christian, they're two distinct concepts that aren't even a part of the same field of science. One falls under biology; the other under biochemistry.

 

 

When you explain to them that without a Creator you must include abiogenesis as the foundation for evolution, they usually try to insult your intelligence because they have no rebuttal.

I've refuted every claim you've made. Try reading with your eyes open.

 

 

They have no idea of how life started because they denounce creation. They don’t want to admit to a Creator. Yet they are smart enough to recognize the impossible odds that must be overcome for life to generate on its own from non-life. They want to debate evolution against creation but they have no counter for the actual “creation”.

Prove creation, first. You have no evidence of a creator, and I've demonstrated this many times. You don't start with a default position of creation and demand falsification. Real science starts at a position of nothing and then pokes around in the dark until it discovers something. Since creation remains undiscovered, it has no room in a scientific discussion, no matter how many times you try to smuggle it in.

 

The sole purpose of abiogenesis is to allow the atheist evolutionist to remove the formation of life from the evolution/creation debate so they can at least continue some semblance of a debate.

 

Abiogenesis is basically an escape hatch for evolutionists.

You really love those ad hominems, don't you?

 

Abiogenesis was never a part of evolution, and you can't find a reputable scientific resource that says that it is. (note: anti-evolution apologetic websites don't count)

 

If you have to distort your opponents position to make an argument, then you don't have an argument.

[Ouroboros]

Evolutionist can’t account for the actual beginning of life. Scientists have determined the odds of life beginning from random chance to be in the neighborhood of impossible.

Which one? Reference please.

 

Some try to argue the validity of the odds but this group of people is getting smaller in number and their arguments are weak at best.

How do you know that? What is your source to the statistics?

 

Most in the scientific community recognize that the odds are virtually impossible if not absolutely impossible.

Reference? Source?

 

…

They have no idea of how life started because they denounce creation. They don’t want to admit to a Creator. Yet they are smart enough to recognize the impossible odds that must be overcome for life to generate on its own from non-life. They want to debate evolution against creation but they have no counter for the actual “creation”.

…

 

Wait a minute here. So you say that when there are some holes in the theory of evolution is should automatically default the conflict between the competing theories to lean towards creationism? So God created, against all odds and natural phenomena, the world in 6 days, because there are some missing links in the explanation of evolution? You’re fast to jump to conclusion, as a true religionist should do.

 

This is the problem with religion, it starts with an assumption based on the faith, then searches for proof for the assumption, and skips the contradictory evidence to their theory, and never will they change.

 

I think we need to know what you specifically include in the term Creation. Which part did God do, and which part is a natural phenomenon? You have to break it up in two categories so we know were you’re standing. Does evolution work at all in your world view, or is it totally moot in your opinion? Does microevolution work or not? At what point does God go in and do his stuff, and where does nature take over?

 

Where do you draw the line between Natural Events and Super-Natural Events?

 

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[invictus1967]

You are validating my point. I said you want to separate the two and that is what you are trying to doing. You want creation without a creator.

 

If you are going to argue the absence of a creator, how can you seperate evolution from abiogenesis?

 

Without a creator, explain to me exactly how you can have evolution without abiogenesis?

[Vulgaris Prime]

You are validating my point. I said you want to separate the two and that is what you are trying to doing. You want creation without a creator.

 

If you are going to argue the absence of a creator, how can you seperate evolution from abiogenesis?

 

Without a creator, explain to me exactly how you can have evolution without abiogenesis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You ignorant shit. You keep telling us that you can't have a universe without a creator. Well, what created the creator? What created the creator of the creator? What created the creator of the creator of the creator? I can go like this until you're so dizzy you puke. If you want to be taken seriously (fat chance of that), you need to address the gaping hole in your idea; namely, that you tell us that our ideas need a creator, but yours don't.

 

You're coming off as a stupid git, inpricktus. You might want to remedy that.

[Mr. Neil]

You are validating my point. I said you want to separate the two and that is what you are trying to doing. You want creation without a creator.

 

If you are going to argue the absence of a creator, how can you seperate evolution from abiogenesis?

 

Without a creator, explain to me exactly how you can have evolution without abiogenesis?

I'm really starting to lose my patience with you. I'm not "trying" to do anything.

 

Listen. Abiogenesis describes the process of prebiotic replicators to biological organisms; the beginning of life. Evolution describes changes in biology, which assumes that life already exists. They're two different concepts.

 

You're proving my point by trying to make a theological issue out of it. Are you attacking a scientific theory, or are you attacking atheism? Or do you not understand the difference between atheism and evolution?

 

Neither abiogenesis nor evolution necessarily contradict theism. All they are saying is that there are natural processes to explain the existence of life, and the fact that they're embraced by atheists doesn't make them atheistic either. When god created the universe, did he not also create all of the regularities and physical laws of the universe? Is there a particular reason why evolution is disqualified?

 

Like I said before, abiogenesis and evolution are not even a part of the same field of science. Abiogenesis falls under biochemistry. You can't apply evolution to pre-biotic compounds. It doesn't work. Like I said, it's like trying to apply Neutonian physics on the sub-atomic level. Surely I don't have to explain how concepts such as mutations, speciation, natural selection, and sexual selection don't apply to pre-life compounds.

 

Do you get it now? Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution.