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?

[The Barbarian]

We clearly know what is living and what is not.

It seems that we don't...
Scientists are not sure whether viruses are living or non-living. In general, scientists use a list of criteria to determine if something is alive. Let’s look at some traits of living things and see if viruses also have those traits.

Living things have cells. Viruses do not have cells. They have a protein coat that protects their genetic material (either DNA or RNA). But they do not have a cell membrane or other organelles (for example, ribosomes or mitochondria) that cells have.

Living things reproduce. In general, cells reproduce by making a copy of their DNA. Unlike cells, viruses do not have the tools to make a copy of their DNA. But they have found other ways to make new viruses. This is done by inserting virus genetic material into a host cell. This causes the cell to make a copy of the virus DNA, making more viruses.

Many scientists argue that even though viruses can use other cells to reproduce itself, viruses are still not considered alive under this category. This is because viruses do not have the tools to replicate their genetic material themselves.

More recently, scientists have discovered a new type of virus, called a mimivirus. These viruses do contain the tools for making a copy of its DNA. This suggests that certain types of viruses may actually be living.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions ... uses-alive

Q.Name one property of a living thing that the virus lacks?

See above.

Most biologists don't think prions are alive,even though they can infect living things and reproduce in them. It's not as easy as it was once thought.

[Bradskii]

So when time stops, everything disappears.

Time is only a measurement (of change). I don't think that you realise that. Saying 'when time stops' is like saying 'when length stops'. And your use of terms such as past and present is just playing with words. It doesn't mean anything in the context it is being used (an event - abiogenesis, that happened in the past). There's obviously continuity between the present and the past. You wouldn't have read this complete sentence if you hadn't started reading it in the past. So we can work backwards and ask where you came from. And then your parents. And we can keep going back until we reach an event we can term abiogenesis.

And the fact that you say it never happened is pretty meaningless in itself. How about proposing your alternative? You must have one. So let's hear it and we can see if it stands up to scrutiny.

And reality is a construct of the mind? Gimme a break. The mind (or consciousness if you like) has emerged gradually as Homo sapien gradually evolved. So has reality gradually emerged as well? If everyone died tomorrow, then does reality cease to exist? My dog is really going to be annoyed. But then he's conscious, so will reality will still be here? Or is it just human minds?

And as for when something becomes 'alive' is a debatable point. Type in 'characteristics of life' into the browser of your choice and check out the different numbers of characteristics that are given depending on which site you visit. How about you find the largest list and we'll use that to define life. How does that sound? Then if you want to know if something is alive, then check off the characteristics. When you have a full house, then it's alive.

Let me know how you get on.

Oh, and get some advice on how to use the quote function correctly.

[Noose001]

Certain structures or combinations of molecules can be described as living things.

Never about arrangements and combinations; a freshly dead cat has its structures or combinations of molecules right where they were when it was alive.

"All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny- ... s-of-life/
[/quote]

Good, so there's a big difference between physico-chemical processes and biochemical processes.

Q. Out of this big list, name the things that a self replicating peptide lacks?

[Noose001]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 'bizarre and impossible situation'. Do you mean atoms forming molecules or molecules replicating?

Abiogenesis is impossible

If something is capable of reproducing itself, is that alive?
If something can respond to external stimulus, is that alive?
If something consumes other things, is that alive?
etc.

No, there's a list of properties all living things share.

Death normally means an end to being alive, so if the molecule can no longer meet the standard of being 'alive' then it would be 'dead'.

You said a self replicating molecule is alive, can it die is my question. Stop deflecting.

[Bradskii]

Q. Out of this big list, name the things that a self replicating peptide lacks?

What's this? Homework? How about you check the list yourself and see what peptides and a dead cat have in common as regards characteristics of life. We can see if you understand this stuff then.

[Noose001]

We are discusing that the girls arrived at practice (non living became living). Your wanting to know the how or when is irrelevant to the fact that both have occured. Nothing wrong with asking those questions, but such things just may not be known.

Abiogenesis, the thought that life originated from non living materials is the discussion. The shift from non living to live shouldbe the MOST relevant part of this discussion and nothing else. If it is not known, why hypothesise it? Saying how and when is irrelevant is like saying abiogenesis is irrelevant which i fully agree.

Q. What exactly do you want to talk about when discussing abiogenesis? What do you think is relevant?

[Bradskii]

You said a self replicating molecule is alive, can it die is my question.

If it has the necessary characteristics of life (did you check that list?) then it will die when it loses some of them. Like the cat did.

[Noose001]

We clearly know what is living and what is not.

It seems that we don't...
Scientists are not sure whether viruses are living or non-living. In general, scientists use a list of criteria to determine if something is alive. Let’s look at some traits of living things and see if viruses also have those traits.

Which one of those scientists says that viruses are non living and can you name one property of a living thing that a virus lacks? If there's non, then it is a consensus.

It is only the properties of viruses outside a cell that some scientists question but there's no doubt that they are living things. A virus that's outside a living cell can still die, so there should be no question.

If bears could hybernate for decades, would anyone question if they are living or not?

Let's agree, if something can DIE or can be KILLED, i'm not sure but it should be alive.

[Noose001]

So when time stops, everything disappears.

Time is only a measurement (of change).

Nope, that would be a rate. For instance acceleration is a measurement of change.

And there's no such thing as change in the absence of a mind.

I don't think that you realise that. Saying 'when time stops' is like saying 'when length stops'.

If it started, we can also imagine its stoppage.

And your use of terms such as past and present is just playing with words. It doesn't mean anything in the context it is being used (an event - abiogenesis, that happened in the past).

But the past doesn't exist, unless you substanciate. So many theories make 'the past' to be non existent.

Saying 'once a upon a time' doesn't make a story true.

There's obviously continuity between the present and the past.

Ok, but that doesn't mean the past is real. Hypothetically, remove the 'present' and see if the 'past' stands.

And we can keep going back until we reach an event we can term abiogenesis.

No we cannot. Hypothetically, if we went back until those periods, then we would be refering to those periods as 'present', but there's no such thing as present in the absence of a mind.

The mind (or consciousness if you like) has emerged gradually as Homo sapien gradually evolved.

The human language alone completely destroys this kind of thinking.

And as for when something becomes 'alive' is a debatable point. Type in 'characteristics of life' into the browser of your choice and check out the different numbers of characteristics that are given depending on which site you visit.

Why don't you do that and let me know when you think abiogenesis actually happens?

[Noose001]

What's this? Homework? How about you check the list yourself and see what peptides and a dead cat have in common as regards characteristics of life. We can see if you understand this stuff then.

I do know quite a lot but that's irrelevant. My main question about the subjest at hand is; when and how?