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 #161]

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.

My hypothesis? I have no hypothesis. I didn't come up with the idea of abiogenesis or any other hypothesis for origin of life. I'm just arguing that abiogenesis can't be declared "impossible" as you have done because it has not yet been disproved (and you've yet to provide any details on why it is impossible, and who/what has demonstrated this).

I have no idea at what point along the chain from nonliving molecular assemblages to the first entity fitting the definition of life might have happened in an abiogenesis scenario. As far as I now no one has worked this out yet or abiogenesis would not still be a hypothesis being investigated. But not being able to answer that question in no way makes abiogenesis "impossible" ... it just means that one or more steps in the process are still unknown as everyone knows who has read up on the subject.

Tell us why you think abiogenesis is impossible (beyond a personal opinion) as a possible mechanism for origin of life on Earth (or any planet).

[brunumb]

[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.

According to your novel idea, nothing that we consider as being in the past happened. Why focus on abiogenesis? Seeing that this is a Christianity forum, does your idea also indicate that the birth of Jesus did not happen, can't happen, wont happen?

[Noose001]

I'm just arguing that abiogenesis can't be declared "impossible" as you have done because it has not yet been disproved (and you've yet to provide any details on why it is impossible, and who/what has demonstrated this).

Given time, stones can turn into bread. I don't know why/how, nobody knows but why should it be impossible.

I have no idea

As far as i now no one has worked this out yet

What?

nonliving molecular assemblages to the first entity fitting the definition of life

This part is abiogenesis. It is the whole point. So sad no one knows abiogenesis.

You can talk about non living, self replicating molecules all day but that's not abiogenesis, just chemistry. Likewise, you can talk about a living cell all day but that's not abiogenesis, just biology/ biochemistry. The shift is what you should be talking about.

Tell us why you think abiogenesis is impossible (beyond a personal opinion) as a possible mechanism for origin of life on Earth (or any planet).

[Noose001]

According to your novel idea, nothing that we consider as being in the past happened.

You can only consider past things in the present. So only the present is real. Meaning that things can only happen in the present. But what does 'present' entail? Must there be a mind for present to be present?

If true that a mind must be there, then abiogenesis fails.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #164]

Given time, stones can turn into bread. I don't know why/how, nobody knows but why should it be impossible.

What does this have to do with abiogenesis being impossible, or not? I don't see any relevance to that subject.

This part is abiogenesis. It is the whole point. So sad no one knows abiogenesis.

You can talk about non living, self replicating molecules all day but that's not abiogenesis, just chemistry. Likewise, you can talk about a living cell all day but that's not abiogenesis, just biology/ biochemistry. The shift is what you should be talking about.

You seem to be missing the point that abiogenesis is a hypotheses for how life may have originated. The detailed steps are not yet understood so it is an open science problem (like many others). If the detailed steps were known, then it would no longer be a hypothesis. It is you who has repeatedly asked the question about when something transitions to "life", but you don't seem to be able to explain why that question is relevant to abiogenesis being possible, or not.

Your entire argument seems to be that because this step (or shift as you call it) is not yet understood, that abiogenesis is therefore impossible. That does not follow. Every open science problem that we don't have the answers for yet are not automatically "impossible" for that reason alone, but this appears to be the crux of your argument.

[brunumb]

You can talk about non living, self replicating molecules all day but that's not abiogenesis, just chemistry.

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.

There is no real hard and fast definition of life which is what makes it difficult to answer the question of when it first arose. Viruses are generally not regarded as living things despite consisting of DNA/RNA enclosed in a protein shell. They do not contain metabolic processes which are usually associated with things regarded as living. On the other hand, a different criterion for defining life would be the ability to transfer genetic information into future generations, thereby reproducing the characteristics of the original species. In that definition, viruses are definitely alive. What do you consider defines a living thing?

When we don't really know about the sequence involved or the time scale involved, it is not really possible to say when abiogenesis as such exactly occurred. We can say that it was somewhere in that continuum of increasing complexity of chemical reactions. There is also no need to inject any deities into the process which is where I am assuming this discussion is heading. Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

[brunumb]

According to your novel idea, nothing that we consider as being in the past happened.

You can only consider past things in the present. So only the present is real. Meaning that things can only happen in the present. But what does 'present' entail? Must there be a mind for present to be present?

If true that a mind must be there, then abiogenesis fails.

And your response to this would therefore be what?

Seeing that this is a Christianity forum, does your idea also indicate that the birth of Jesus did not happen, can't happen, wont happen?

[Noose001]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #165]

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.

[Noose001]

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.

There is no real hard and fast definition of life

There is, there has to be.

Viruses are generally not regarded as living things despite consisting of DNA/RNA enclosed in a protein shell.

Likewise, they can not generally be regarded as non living. They are particles outside a living cell but are purposeful inside a living cell.

a different criterion for defining life would be the ability to transfer genetic information into future generations, thereby reproducing the characteristics of the original species.

No.
Would self replicating RNA be considered living?

What do you consider defines a living thing?

If classical description is not enough for you, how about 'things that can die'

When we don't really know about the sequence involved or the time scale involved, it is not really possible to say when abiogenesis as such exactly occurred. We can say that it was somewhere in that continuum of increasing complexity of chemical reactions.

If you don't properly describe time, then you can't be sure about anything in time.
Your idea of time is so wrong that if i may ask if there was nothing 'before' the universe begun you wouldn't answer. And whether you answer yes or no or don't know, you'll still be wrong.
The same idea that makes you believe some events might have happened in the past, in the absence of of a mind.

There is also no need to inject any deities into the process which is where I am assuming this discussion is heading.

Let's talk abiogenesis.

[Noose001]

And your response to this would therefore be what?

Seeing that this is a Christianity forum, does your idea also indicate that the birth of Jesus did not happen, can't happen, wont happen?

You still don't get it. This is what i mean when i say reality is only in the present;

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. To them, that particular moment is 'present' because they (mind) are experiencing those moments. And those moments have been re-lived in subsequent 'presents' until now (presently). Because you can only re-live past moments in the present, only present is real.

But present entails the presence of a mind. This is not the same thing as claiming abiogenesis happened in the past. If you time travelled to the 'abiogenesis event' (without being considered a mind), how would the event be said to be happening in the present?
But today, you are claiming it happened in the past. Past only comes from present.