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?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #50]

Why do you believe it is a fact?

Fact is independent of belief.

Evolution is as factual as gravity.

The various processes involved can be fussed about, but to deny evolution occurs is folly.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #0]

1. Land animals were the only animals on the Ark.

Prove it. Cite the chapter and verse to back up your contention here. Of course, if by chance it did say only land animals were taken aboard the ark do you actually think all the other life forms survived? Well they didn't because Genesis 7:21-22 says they didn't.

21-24 Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal. All the many kinds of animals and all the things that crawl on the ground died. Every living, breathing thing on dry land died. 23 In this way God wiped the earth clean—he destroyed every living thing on the earth—every human, every animal, everything that crawls, and every bird. All that was left was Noah and his family and the animals that were with him in the boat. 24 The water continued to cover the earth for 150 days.

So if "every living thing on earth died" where did the approximately 20,000,000 species now living on Earth come from? As I said yesterday, "Either god again plopped down another 20,000,000 species on Earth around 2348 BC. or evolution raced along at break-neck speed. " Which is it? And don't forget, evolution is not an overnight process, but one that takes many, many, many, many, many, many years

2. Adaption not evolution was the main driving force of change after the flood.

Obviously you have absolutely no idea how evolution works because by and large evolution is adaptation----there are other chance mutations in the genes that are not adaptations but nonetheless do factor into a change within a species.

Meaning no new information was needed to create the complexity of species that we see.

Meaning no such thing. P l e a s e bone up on evolution, even if it's a little bit. Here, here's a book that looks like a good start:

.....................................................................................


.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #61]

You still have not explained why you believe evolution is true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Who says the objects are rotating? The plane passengers and astronauts obviously are not (at least at any kind of speeds to matter), and the rocks and particles in Saturn's rings aren't necessarily rotating at high speeds either. Accretion happens and does not violate any laws of physics.

There is no known mechanism that can form dust into a planetesmal.

The solid building blocks of planets are a trace component within gas-dominated protoplanetary disks. The
processes that govern the growth of macroscopic particles remain poorly understood. Perhaps the most vexing problem is the growth of the first planetesimals. Once planetesimals are present in the disk, their further
growth by accreting pebbles is modestly well understood. The first population of planetesimals may serve as
a planetary system’s blueprint.
In the classic model of planet accretion, dust particles settle to the midplane of the disk, collide with each
other, and form aggregates held together by electrostatic forces [e.g.,Dominik and Tielens, 1997]. Little by little
these aggregates grow and get compacted by collisions, forming small planetesimals [e.g., Weidenschilling
and Cuzzi, 1993, Blum and Wurm, 2008].
Today we know that this classic picture of planetesimal growth has severe problems (illustrated in Figure 2).
When silicate grains grow to a size of about a millimeter, they start to bounce off each other instead of accreting [Zsom and Dullemond, 2008; Güttler et al., 2009]. In the icy part of the disk, particles can grow up to a few
decimeters in size before starting to bounce. This is called the bouncing barrier. At these sizes, particles migrate
rapidly in the disk toward the star due to gas drag. This radial drift produces large relative velocities among
particles of different sizes and hence disruptive collisions. Even if collisions were not disruptive and particles
could continue to grow, eventually meter-size boulders would migrate so rapidly to be lost into the star before
they can grow significantly further [Weidenschilling, 1977]. This is the well known meter-size barrier (referred
to as the “drift barrier” in Figure 2) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 16JE005088

Though the standard scenario still has serious difficulties in the formation of planetesimals from dust grains [3], the discussion here starts with planetesimals, assuming that they have been formed by some mechanism. https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article/2 ... 08/1570529

The net photodissociation rate of CO2 to form O2 depends on the amount of UV light at any given point, and its wavelength. The more O2 there is already, the less UV light at the right wavelengths is available to photodissociate CO2 (to make CO + O mainly, then subsequent reactions can make O2):

I am not sure how CO2 ties into our discussion. Water vapor from volcanic eruptions would be the main oxygen producer in your theory.

A lot of the early CO2 was taken up by the formation of carbonate rocks, with estimated partial pressures for CO2 of ~10 mbar in the Archean and ~1 mbar in the Proterozoic (from above paper). So the amount of O2 that could be made from CO2 photodissociation is (obviously) less than the total partial pressures of CO2. 10 mbar today would be 1% of the total surface pressure on Earth (about 1 Bar). But photodissociation of 10 mabr of CO2, or even 100 mbar, could not make an atmosphere with 21% O2 as we have today. And neither could photodissociation of H2O which makes mainly H+ and OH-.
I suppose I could do that calculation but the amount of granite on the earth is ample evidence for the amount of oxygen in the early earth atmosphere.
If "early" is 2.5 billion years ago or later, then there was oxygen starting to become available, but before that what evidence is there for lots of O2 in the atmosphere (anywhere near today's 20.9%)?

Very interesting abstract:

We find that the melts have average oxygen fugacities that are consistent with an oxidation state defined by the fayalite–magnetite–quartz buffer, similar to present-day conditions. Moreover, selected Hadean zircons (having chemical characteristics consistent with crystallization specifically from mantle-derived melts) suggest oxygen fugacities similar to those of Archaean and present-day mantle-derived lavas2,3,4,9,10 as early as ∼4,350 Myr before present. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10655

If "they" are the asteroid belt rocks, then they are in orbit around the Sun, not each other. And Pluto has moons because it is big enough to hold them in stable orbits. Are you claiming that the asteroid belt rocks are not orbiting the Sun but traveling in straight lines away from Earth? Is this another Walt Brown dream?

Yes, it is. I am not sure whether he dreamed about it or not. But there is something called the 1 km barrier. An object has a 1 km diameter then it will start to pull other objects to it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #62]

Prove it. Cite the chapter and verse to back up your contention here. Of course, if by chance it did say only land animals were taken aboard the ark do you actually think all the other life forms survived? Well they didn't because Genesis 7:21-22 says they didn't.

21-24 Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal. All the many kinds of animals and all the things that crawl on the ground died. Every living, breathing thing on dry land died. 23 In this way God wiped the earth clean—he destroyed every living thing on the earth—every human, every animal, everything that crawls, and every bird. All that was left was Noah and his family and the animals that were with him in the boat. 24 The water continued to cover the earth for 150 days.

So if "every living thing on earth died" where did the approximately 20,000,000 species now living on Earth come from? As I said yesterday, "Either god again plopped down another 20,000,000 species on Earth around 2348 BC. or evolution raced along at break-neck speed. " Which is it? And don't forget, evolution is not an overnight process, but one that takes many, many, many, many, many, many years

What version are you reading? The evolution version of the Bible. Here is what verse 23 actually says:

New International Version
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

New Living Translation
God wiped out every living thing on the earth—people, livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and the birds of the sky. All were destroyed. The only people who survived were Noah and those with him in the boat.

English Standard Version
He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

Berean Study Bible
And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained.

King James Bible
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

New King James Version
So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

New American Standard Bible
So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

2. Adaption not evolution was the main driving force of change after the flood.
Obviously, you have absolutely no idea how evolution works because by and large evolution is adaptation----there are other chance mutations in the genes that are not adaptations but nonetheless do factor into a change within a species.

You might try reading that book yourself. Because there is a difference between adaptation and evolution.

Adaptation is reversable Evoluton is not.
Adaptation results in phenotypic variation among species: Evolution results in new species
Adaptation is a change in the phenotypic level; Evolution is a change in the genotypic level
Adaptation is a structure or form improved to fit a changing environment; Evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of the biological population over a successive generation

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #62]

Prove it. Cite the chapter and verse to back up your contention here. Of course, if by chance it did say only land animals were taken aboard the ark do you actually think all the other life forms survived? Well they didn't because Genesis 7:21-22 says they didn't.

21-24 Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal. All the many kinds of animals and all the things that crawl on the ground died. Every living, breathing thing on dry land died. 23 In this way God wiped the earth clean—he destroyed every living thing on the earth—every human, every animal, everything that crawls, and every bird. All that was left was Noah and his family and the animals that were with him in the boat. 24 The water continued to cover the earth for 150 days.

So if "every living thing on earth died" where did the approximately 20,000,000 species now living on Earth come from? As I said yesterday, "Either god again plopped down another 20,000,000 species on Earth around 2348 BC. or evolution raced along at break-neck speed. " Which is it? And don't forget, evolution is not an overnight process, but one that takes many, many, many, many, many, many years

What version are you reading? The evolution version of the Bible. Here is what verse 23 actually says:

New International Version
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

New Living Translation
God wiped out every living thing on the earth—people, livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and the birds of the sky. All were destroyed. The only people who survived were Noah and those with him in the boat.

English Standard Version
He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

Berean Study Bible
And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained.

King James Bible
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

New King James Version
So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

New American Standard Bible
So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

*Sigh* What I'm waiting for you to prove is your claim that "1. Land animals were the only animals on the Ark." and so far none of the above does this. Does it!

2. Adaption not evolution was the main driving force of change after the flood.
Obviously, you have absolutely no idea how evolution works because by and large evolution is adaptation----there are other chance mutations in the genes that are not adaptations but nonetheless do factor into a change within a species.

You might try reading that book yourself. Because there is a difference between adaptation and evolution.

Adaptation is reversable Evoluton is not.
Adaptation results in phenotypic variation among species: Evolution results in new species
Adaptation is a change in the phenotypic level; Evolution is a change in the genotypic level
Adaptation is a structure or form improved to fit a changing environment; Evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of the biological population over a successive generation

.....................................

............................................................. A little learning is a dangerous thing



.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #66]

New American Standard Bible
So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

*Sigh* What I'm waiting for you to prove is your claim that "1. Land animals were the only animals on the Ark." and so far none of the above does this. Does it!

Wow, I do not know what more one would need.

1. Every living thing that was upon the face of the LAND.
2. And then the Bible names the kinds that were on the ark, Mankind is its own kind, animals that were created on day 6 (land animals), Birds (flying animals), Creepythings Insects.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #66]

New American Standard Bible
So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

*Sigh* What I'm waiting for you to prove is your claim that "1. Land animals were the only animals on the Ark." and so far none of the above does this. Does it!

Wow, I do not know what more one would need.

1. Every living thing that was upon the face of the LAND.
2. And then the Bible names the kinds that were on the ark, Mankind is its own kind, animals that were created on day 6 (land animals), Birds (flying animals), Creepythings Insects.

If I said "I went to the grocery store this morning" it means I went to the grocery store this morning; HOWEVER, it does not exclude the very real possibility I also went to the drug store. Likewise, just because god said to take all the land animals aboard the ark doesn't mean he also didn't tell Noah to take all the other life forms aboard as well----an order the Bible never bothered to report----but, considering these various life forms exist today, it would be something Noah would have to have done. If not, then where did they all come from? Did god simply *poof* them into existence after all the waters had receded? And if he could simply *poof* them into existence why have Noah go to all the trouble of saving the land animals when these too could be *poofed* into existence?

All in all it's one more reason the Noah/Flood story is so ridiculous.


.



.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #68]

Actually, specialization after the flood is something that can actually be measured, unlike evolutionary theory.

The actual pattern in which species arose is surprising. Based on genetic comparisons between species, the pattern that emerges is fairly linear.3 In other words, species have been forming in families at approximately constant rates since the Flood.

For example, 55 species in the deer family are living today. Among the species with readily available genetic information, genetic comparisons show a linear pattern of speciation. On the basis of this result, a new deer species appears to have formed approximately every 80 years.

As another example, in the cat family, 37 species exist today. Based on genetics, they have been forming at a constant rate over the last 4,500 years. In other words, on average, one new cat species has arisen roughly every 120 years.

As a third example, the horse and donkey family (Equidae) contains seven species today. Again, based on genetics, these species have been forming at a constant rate over the last 4,500 years. In other words, on average, one new equid species has arisen approximately every 640 years. https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... xtinction/

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #61]
You still have not explained why you believe evolution is true.

I did explain...

Evolution is fact.

Whether we choose to believe it or not.

We see it in our own families - where we can observe similarities, and differences. We're roughly half one parent, and half the other'n in appearance, and of course genetics. So we see the changed genetics.

From there it's a reasonable and logical conclusion to note that given enough changes, new forms, or species will be created.