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?

[brunumb]

What difference does it make?

Much.

I can't see any so it would be very helpful if you elaborated on your "much".

[Noose001]

I can't see any so it would be very helpful if you elaborated on your "much".

We've discussed about the 'what' (self replicating molecules), but until we discuss about the 'when' (when can we say the molecule is now alive) and the 'how' (how does it become alive), we haven't discussed abiogenesis (which means evolution of life from non living molecules)

[brunumb]

I can't see any so it would be very helpful if you elaborated on your "much".

We've discussed about the 'what' (self replicating molecules), but until we discuss about the 'when' (when can we say the molecule is now alive) and the 'how' (how does it becomes alive), we haven't discussed abiogenesis (which means evolution of life from non living molecules)

That doesn't really address why it matters when a structure can be described as being a living thing. It must be somewhere along the continuum from organic self-replicating molecules to reproducing cells. We currently don't know the sequence involved but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor that we need to insert something supernatural to have made it happen.

[Noose001]

That doesn't really address why it matters when a structure can be described as being a living thing.

It's the whole point of abiogenesis.

It must be somewhere along the continuum from organic self-replicating molecules to reproducing cells.

Then you are having a nice but meaningless title (abiogenesis). 'Somewhere along' is not an explanation. Why don't you list all the properties of a living thing and compare them with those of a self replicating peptide and come up with an hypothesis,

"as soon as the self replicating molecules acquires 1,2... or as soon as the molecule is able to do 1,2... then it is a living thing"

Simple.

We currently don't know...

Yeah, it seems.

[brunumb]

We currently don't know...

Yeah, it seems.

So what's the problem? The fact that we currently don't know how it happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, or even that we will never know how it happened. Still no need for any supernatural intervention.

[Noose001]

[Replying to brunumb in post #155]

But i didn't talk about any supernatural yet, i was talking about things that did not happen, can't happen, wont happen.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #157]

But i didn't talk about any supernatural yet, i was talking about things that did not happen, can't happen, wont happen.

Assuming you are referring to abiogenesis as the thing that "did not happen, can't happen, won't happen" then explain why this is the case? All you've done so far is simply claim it didn't happen without any supporting arguments or external links to references, etc. Abiogenesis as a hypothesis for how life may have arisen is still on the table, scientifically. Nothing you've presented takes it off the table. Do you have anything other than personal opinion to support your claim that abiogenesis did not happen?

[Noose001]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #157]

Assuming you are referring to abiogenesis as the thing that "did not happen, can't happen, won't happen" then explain why this is the case?

I'm not the one to do the explanation. The one who thinks it happened needs to explain the why, how, when, if they fail to explain then i have the liberty to confidently say it didn't happen.

And i'll ask again:
Q. When do you think this self replicating molecule could be said to be alive? Is it when it acquires a protective barrier(a cell membrane/wall to protect it from the very environment which it was seemlessly replicating), or before?

Nothing you've presented takes it off the table.

I can't take it off the table, i don't think i've the ability to interfere with people's belief (because that's what it is in the absence of a coherent explanation). All i can do is question.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #159]

I'm not the one to do the explanation. The one who thinks it happened needs to explain the why, how, when, if they fail to explain then i have the liberty to confidently say it didn't happen.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Creation by a god being is another hypothesis. Panspermia is another. Since none of these (or others) have been definitively proved or disproved they remain hypotheses. But you are claiming that one of them (abiogenesis) is impossible when that has not been determined yet. My question was how you can make this claim in the absence of any proof that it is indeed impossible. You are making an unsupported claim, presumably because you simply don't believe it is possible for personal reasons (as you've not outlined any other reasons here). What is your hypothesis for how life originated on this planet?

And i'll ask again:
Q. When do you think this self replicating molecule could be said to be alive? Is it when it acquires a protective barrier(a cell membrane/wall to protect it from the very environment which it was seemlessly replicating), or before?

And I'll repeat brunumb's response ... why does this matter? Life does exist on the planet now, and we have evidence (eg. stromatolites, and other evidence) that simpler, single-cell life forms existed as far back as 3-4 billion years ago that were far more complex than a replicating peptide. We don't know what the simplest life form was (yet anyway, and we may never) but abiogenesis is simply a hypothesis that whatever it was it formed through a series of steps that started with molecules of various types interacting in the presence of H2O, temperature changes, electricity (lightning, electrostatic), etc.

We know that amino acids and other compounds can form this way, and so it is reasonable to expect that amino acids may have combined to make proteins and that other chemistry likely occurred to make other types of compounds. But a detailed mechanism for "life from nonlife" is not yet known (otherwise it would not still be a hypothesis), so there is no reason to discard abiogenesis as a possibility until it is proven that it is, in fact, impossible. That has not been done yet.

[Noose001]

[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.