Abiogenesis

[♦ ficino ♦]

Then there is all of the other “missing links” beyond that of abiogenesis. When a species appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly. It simply appears. There is no chain of one species evolving into another and into another and so on and so.

 

In fact, when you look at the fossil record, you wonder how anyone ever saw a chain to begin with.

 

 

 

 

The missing link problem is set up by the question, how many intermediate stages, and in respect to what physical features, do we as observers demand to see in the fossil record before we can conclude that X and Y both descended separately, say, from Z. I have not encountered anyone but a creationist with religious preconceptions who denies that the gradations we see in fossils of early man, say, or horses or cats are explained by the theory of evolution. The rival theory, that God successively created one species after another, each one just a little differently adapted to environments than the one before, is a much less elegant and economical theory, although it may not lead to any logical contradictions. That theory doesn't solve any problem that evolution doesn't solve more successfully. One of the functions of a scientific theory is predictive; it guides further research. What is going to happen to biological and biochemical research worldwide, to research in genetics (to step away from fossils for a moment), if we suppose that each species is fixed and no new one can come into being unless God creates it? Is God still in the process of creating new species? Do new viruses come into being by His hand? I thought creation was finished --- what's with creation of new life forms? It's also very hard to see how it glorifies God for him to have created countless species of organisms that became extinct before humans appear in the fossilized layers. So I as a non-scientist, I admit, don't see how creationism is a theory that has greater predictive and explanatory power than evolution for the origin of species.

 

Your abiogenesis point - a different one from this! - was discussed above.

[Vigile]

Here's what he did.

 

He posted a few Darwin quotes.  Then I refuted them.  Then he posted them again, omitting the parts that were refuted and making them appear that Darwin was saying something that, if you read the full quote in context, you will plainly see he said no such things.  Note the vox populi one, which is so obviously talking about appealing to the majority, yet he twisted the quote so that it appeared as though Darwin was talking about theism and the existence of God.

 

That's pretty dishonest, and I have every right question his integrity after such a filthy, dispicable tactic.

 

You know what?  Maybe I shouldn't have called him a moron.  I was being nice.  I should have called him a fucking bitch-ass liar!

 

 

I don't know. Somehow I'm drawn to the spirit of the lord that just shines through his living testimony. I didn't get it all these years, but his repetition of the same tired arguements really spoke to me and wore me down

 

...or, he's just a moron who refused to take his medication this morning.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe those who are in on this ought to say something about our backgrounds, if we haven't done so previously.

 

very briefly:

 

Sweden

Learned programming 79-80

Technical highschool -83

Computer consulting and Teaching Computer science in the mid 80's

Computer support and maintenance 86-

Network consulting 87-

Programmer and software analyst since 87-current

Relational database, analyse and design 88-

Had my own business off and on. 91-95, computer consulting

America since 96-, cable TV local adv. spot software

Latest business 1.5 years in making, currently workers comp ind. and consulting

[Thurisaz]

Atheistic Evolution is riddled with wholes. First, it is totally dependent on the theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Mr. Neil]

Has he figured out yet that he's using the word "wholes" instead of "holes"? I made fun it twice, and I don't think he ever caught it.

 

Further evidence that we're dealing with a moron.

[John]

Damn too many replies!

 

It's important to note that abiogenesis is a field that still needs a lot of work.

 

Uh-huh, certainly sounds like alchemy!

 

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

 

Yeah, it would definitely be a miracle to render just left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars!

 

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.

 

Oh, I was merely indicating that sugars were not produced in the Miller-Urey experiments, which are the foundation of nucleotides.

 

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.

 

No, it didn’t address what I was looking for, but this did. http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

 

“After about a week, the simulated ocean accumulated some brown tar -- and a variety of dissolved organic molecules, including several biological amino acids.”

 

“And while some biological molecules, like the smaller amino acids and nucleic-acid bases, are readily produced in Urey-Miller experiments, others, like sugars, are not. This means that nucleic acids are difficult to produce, since they contain the sugar ribose and its derivatives; this is a major difficulty with the otherwise-very-attractive "RNA world" hypothesis.”

 

“Thus, how to get from there to a complete self-reproducing system is still an unsolved problem, but this question is being actively researched.”

 

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.

 

Uh, MrSpooky, no self-replicating RNA has been found nor have been created in the laboratory.

 

Yes, some varieties of RNA in living cells do have a restricted power to catalyze chemical reactions, but this is surely no undertaking that a more crude pre-RNA could catalyze a lot with no aid from DNA.

 

Of course, you believe that an uncomplicated substance could catalyze chemical reactions a lot better than real RNA, i.e., well adequate to bring forth proteins all by itself. Enzymes, accelerate up chemical reactions, otherwise these reactions would occur so tardily, the cell would expire while it awaited for the first protein to be brought in.

 

MrSpooky, just curious, how long would it take to create just one new protein?

 

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

 

Yes, they’re uncomplicated, but lipids can only be made by a “real manufacturing plant” such as a living cell.

 

Also, MrSpooky, what would occur if ultraviolet radiation was applied to the Miller-Urey experiments since the Earth’s early atmosphere had no ozone layer?

[Saviourmachine]

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.

Just in case you want to study the phenomenon "Christian Evolutionist": Theistic Evolution & Edwardt Babinski - Christian Evolutionists. What Christian Creationists are working in the field of molecular genetics e.g.?

 

I mean - I'm doing a master in Knowledge Engineering - but that doesn't qualify me to have authority about these things. However, my personal opinion regarding these matters does count. I'm convinced about biological evolution and have many arguments why. That's enough for me. Why are you bothered about that?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Damn too many replies!

Uh-huh, certainly sounds like alchemy!

Yeah, it would definitely be a  miracle to render just left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars!

Oh, I was merely indicating that sugars were not produced in the Miller-Urey experiments, which are the foundation of nucleotides.

No, it didn’t address what I was looking for, but this did. http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

 

“After about a week, the simulated ocean accumulated some brown tar -- and a variety of dissolved organic molecules, including several biological amino acids.”

 

“And while some biological molecules, like the smaller amino acids and nucleic-acid bases, are readily produced in Urey-Miller experiments, others, like sugars, are not. This means that nucleic acids are difficult to produce, since they contain the sugar ribose and its derivatives; this is a major difficulty with the otherwise-very-attractive "RNA world" hypothesis.”

 

“Thus, how to get from there to a complete self-reproducing system is still an unsolved problem, but this question is being actively researched.”

Uh, MrSpooky, no self-replicating RNA has been found nor have been created in the laboratory.

 

Yes, some varieties of RNA in living cells do have a restricted power to catalyze chemical reactions, but this is surely no undertaking that a more crude pre-RNA could catalyze a lot with no aid from DNA.

 

Of course, you believe that an uncomplicated substance could catalyze chemical reactions a lot better than real RNA, i.e., well adequate to bring forth proteins all by itself. Enzymes, accelerate up chemical reactions, otherwise these reactions would occur so tardily, the cell would expire while it awaited for the first protein to be brought in.

 

MrSpooky, just curious, how long would it take to create just one new protein?

Yes, they’re uncomplicated, but lipids can only be made by a “real manufacturing plant” such as a living cell.

 

Also, MrSpooky, what would occur if ultraviolet radiation was applied to the Miller-Urey experiments since the Earth’s early atmosphere had no ozone layer?

 

 

John, way out of my field, but your reply is fascinating to this layman. Your listing on this site says Gods: none. Do you have views on how living cells may have come to be?

[♦ ficino ♦]

As a young Christian I'd read tracts that said the probability of abiogenesis was 1 in 10 to the -48 or 1 in 10 to the -256. That seemed a really convincing argument to me that God must have created living cells.

 

Now I'm thinking that these probability guesses are bogus. The probability of living cells' coming to be is 1, no? The question is the mechanism. I don't see how appealing to God answers the question of mechanism at all. And if the question of mechanism can be answered, what do we gain by bringing God in?

 

On the other hand, the probability of all the propositions of the Bible being true is zero. There are propositions that are mutually contradictory, others that have been falsified.

 

So whatever the origin of life, our inability to prove abiogenesis does not in the slightest degree amount to evidence for the truth of the Bible.

 

A chemist colleague of mine says "we're pretty sure we can construct a model of how abiogenesis occurred." I can't judge how correct he is.

[Ouroboros]

As a young Christian I'd read tracts that said the probability of abiogenesis was 1 in 10 to the -48 or 1 in 10 to the -256.  That seemed a really convincing argument to me that God must have created living cells.

 

Now I'm thinking that these probability guesses are bogus.  The probability of living cells' coming to be is 1, no?  The question is the mechanism.  I don't see how appealing to God answers the question of mechanism at all.  And if the question of mechanism can be answered, what do we gain by bringing God in?

 

On the other hand, the probability of all the propositions of the Bible being true is zero.  There are propositions that are mutually contradictory, others that have been falsified.

 

So whatever the origin of life, our inability to prove abiogenesis does not in the slightest degree amount to evidence for the truth of the Bible.

 

A chemist colleague of mine says "we're pretty sure we can construct a model of how abiogenesis occurred."  I can't judge how correct he is.

 

The Devil is in the Probability.

 

Like I said in another posting (maybe in this thread), that the probability to win on lotto is less than to be struck by lightning, yet there is one, almost every week, that wins on lotto, while there isn’t anyone struck by lightning. So according to probability more people should be hit by a flash, and fewer should win on lotto. So where is the problem? It is the participation!

 

In a lotto game, people put themselves into the “danger” of being hit by the winning number, while few people stand on an empty street in a thunderstorm.

 

So probability has to do with more parameters than just the statistical data.

 

Say if the probability for abiogenesis was 1 in 1 million, but you have 1 million participating “particles”, or whatever is needed for it to happen. Your overall chance is suddenly higher. If you have 1 billion “particles”, then it could be almost imminent that it has to happen.

 

When probability is calculated for abiogenesis it has to do a lot of assumptions. Like what were the conditions? How many “particles” participated? And so on. But does anyone really know and can for sure calculate the proper conditions? We can only do estimates, and estimates can be totally wrong, especially when no one can find a recording device from that time that can tell us the exact data.

[John]

John, way out of my field, but your reply is fascinating to this layman. Your listing on this site says Gods: none. Do you have views on how living cells may have come to be?

 

No, I don't have the slightest clue.

[Godless Dave]

I don't know why the concept of a conscious universe disturbs so many people

 

It doesn't disturb me, I just don't see any evidence for it. As far as we know, consciousness requires a brain to exist.

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't disturb me, I just don't see any evidence for it. As far as we know, consciousness requires a brain to exist.

 

It doesn't disturb me either, but we only know of the kind of consciousness that we have experience of.

 

If we one day would be able to make computers with intelligence and consciousness, then the comparison between the computers consciousness and ours would be similar to how we are compared to a higher being.

 

Say for instance that the quantum mechanics play an important role in a higher beings consciousness; we would not be able to understand its thoughts or reasoning.

 

I’ve spent some time thinking through how the difference would be between us and a conscious computer, and I must say that we can’t really know for sure if the universe is conscious or not. Nothing today points that way, but it is not impossible.

 

So with Occam’s razor, we should say there’s not, but our knowledge is still solely bases on our current knowledge of the universe. There are lots of pieces still missing.