Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

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

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #169]

I'm sorry but that shift or origin of life from non life is the very definition of abiogenesis. Every other part has less relevance. So if no one knows how and when then it's not even a hypothesis, just like claiming stones turning to bread given time is a possibility but no one has the details.

No one is disputing the definition of abiogenesis ... that isn't being debated. But you seem to not understand what a hypothesis is. If the "how and when" were known, then it would not be a hypothesis but an already solved problem. If it is an already solved problem then there would be no point in forming hypotheses as potential explanations that people could then attempt to support via observations, experiments, analysis, etc.

The "stone to bread" scenario is not an analogy. That is a random example of something we already know is unlikely to happen because of what we already know about what stones are, and what bread is and how it is made (which isn't from stones). Abiogenesis is a hypothesis on how life may have arisen through a process involving chemical interactions influenced by light (from the sun), electricity, thermal variations, etc., over very long periods of time which eventually led to the first, simplest population of life forms (whatever those were).

There is no proof yet that abiogenesis is a correct hypothesis, and there is also no proof yet that it cannot or did not happen. This is the point I am making. You are claiming that abiogenesis is "impossible", but have yet to provide any support for that claim other than personal opinion (incredulity). Again, science not yet having a complete solution to a problem does not mean that a solution is impossible." It just means there is an unsolved problem that remains open to investigation. Abiogenesis is in this category, and it is still very much on the table.

[brunumb]

But that's really all that life is, chemistry. You can call it biology or biochemistry if you like, but that is merely used for convenient classification. Everything that goes on in living things is just chemistry.

Nope.
Chemical processes are not the same as biochemical processes. Biochemical processes entails biomolecules, catalyzed by biocatalyst meaning that they are purposeful; support or are supported by life.

Oh yes they are. All you are doing is looking at a specific group of chemical reactions. There is nothing purposeful in their actions. Biochemicals and biocatalysts all behave according to the physical and chemical properties of the functional groups they contain. It's all about electrostatics and chemical bonding. What we call life is the resulting sum total of the chemical processes occurring.

[brunumb]

If you can time travel to the birth of Jesus event (without interfering with system- meaning that you are there but we don't consider you to be there as a mind). You'll actually see Josephe (Father of Jesus), the sheep herders and Mary and the animals around.

But you can't because it is in the past and the past doesn't exist and apparently never did.

[Noose001]

But you can't because it is in the past and the past doesn't exist and apparently never did.

Correct, i just made up some hypothetical scenario.

[Noose001]

Oh yes they are. All you are doing is looking at a specific group of chemical reactions. There is nothing purposeful in their actions. Biochemicals and biocatalysts all behave according to the physical and chemical properties of the functional groups they contain. It's all about electrostatics and chemical bonding. What we call life is the resulting sum total of the chemical processes occurring.

Purposeful; they are timely and never random, products are needed in some other cycle, by- products and wastes have to be neutralised and transfered, the environment is controlled, temperature is controlled.

[Noose001]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #171]

[otseng]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #171]

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the Thank button. For anything else use PM.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #159]

Yes, it is an hypothesis, i get it. But what's wrong with my question?!

Q. When do you think these self replicating molecules become alive?
This question is applicable within your hypothesis and you ought to be able to answer it.

This is like asking, 'can you be on time'.

I coach girls softball and remind my girls that there is no being ontime, you're either early or late.
Would they be on time for 5:30 practice if they got out of their parents car at 5:30? Or is it when they have their cleats on? Or when they have stretched and are ready to start warming up?
(Trying to encourage them to be 'early' in life, not their perceived idea of being on time).

The girls arrived to practice, even if we cannot agree when 'on time' would be.
Things became alive, even if we cannot agree on an exact moment.
The 'when' is meaningless.

[brunumb]

Oh yes they are. All you are doing is looking at a specific group of chemical reactions. There is nothing purposeful in their actions. Biochemicals and biocatalysts all behave according to the physical and chemical properties of the functional groups they contain. It's all about electrostatics and chemical bonding. What we call life is the resulting sum total of the chemical processes occurring.

Purposeful; they are timely and never random, products are needed in some other cycle, by- products and wastes have to be neutralised and transfered, the environment is controlled, temperature is controlled.

And that all happens naturally without any intervention. It's just chemistry. Unless you are going to suggest that there is some sort of supernatural entity controlling it all.

[The Barbarian]

And more evidence appears...

Protein discovered inside a meteorite
A team of researchers from Plex Corporation, Bruker Scientific LLC and Harvard University has found evidence of a protein inside of a meteorite. They have written a paper describing their findings and have uploaded it to the arXiv preprint server.

In prior research, scientists have found organic materials, sugars and some other molecules considered to be precursors to amino acids in both meteorites and comets—and fully formed amino acids have been found in comets and meteorites, as well. But until now, no proteins had been found inside of an extraterrestrial object. In this new effort, the researchers have discovered a protein called hemolithin inside of a meteorite that was found in Algeria back in 1990.

The hemolithin protein found by the researchers was a small one, and was made up mostly of glycine, and amino acids. It also had oxygen, lithium and iron atoms at its ends—an arrangement never seen before. The team's paper has not yet been peer reviewed, but once the findings are confirmed, their discovery will add another piece to the puzzle that surrounds the development of life on Earth. Proteins are considered to be essential building blocks for the development of living things, and finding one on a meteorite bolsters theories that suggest either life, or something very close to it, came to Earth from elsewhere in space.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html