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?

[Noose001]

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.

Is it valid to ask when the girls start practicing?
You miss the point. 'When' question doesn't necessarily require a specific timing, properties or activities at the moment is what i was looking for.
For your case, the practice starts when the coach arrives for example and blows a whistle.

So when can we say a non living molecule has become alive? a very relevant question that specifically targets abiogenesis because that shift, is what abiogenesis is, any other thing is irrelevant.

[benchwarmer]

So when can we say a non living molecule has become alive? a very relevant question that specifically targets abiogenesis because that shift, is what abiogenesis is, any other thing is irrelevant.

Something can be said to be 'alive' after we define what 'alive' means. For molecules, I imagine the bare minimum would be replication. It would become 'alive' if it replicates. In other words, after the first time it does something we consider 'alive'.

Then the question becomes, how did this molecule come to be? Well, they are made up of various atoms in a specific structure. How do atoms combine to form molecules? Is a god necessary in every case? If not in every case, why in ANY case?

So, the basic answer is that a molecule made up of 'non-alive' components becomes 'alive' when it first does something we call 'alive'. i.e. after the atoms form up in the correct structure and the first replication happens.

[Clownboat]

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.

Is it valid to ask when the girls start practicing?
You miss the point. 'When' question doesn't necessarily require a specific timing, properties or activities at the moment is what i was looking for.
For your case, the practice starts when the coach arrives for example and blows a whistle.

So when can we say a non living molecule has become alive? a very relevant question that specifically targets abiogenesis because that shift, is what abiogenesis is, any other thing is irrelevant.

You think I missed the point?!

- The girls arrived at practice.
- Non life became life.
- The 'when' is irrelevant to both statements.

What started it all was post 159: When do you think these self replicating molecules become alive?
You might as well ask each one of my girls if they were ontime and why they think so. The answers will vary, but the statement that the girls arrived at practice (or non life became life) is uneffected.

[The Barbarian]

So when can we say a non living molecule has become alive? a very relevant question that specifically targets abiogenesis because that shift, is what abiogenesis is, any other thing is irrelevant.

The same way we can say a certain thing is big. Obviously, there are things that are alive, and things that are big. There are things almost everyone would say are alive and things almost everyone would say are big. But there are also things that only some people would call alive, just as there are things only some people would call big.

I think everyone would say that a dog is alive, but I've had some creationists argue that plants aren't alive. Some biologists think viruses are alive, even though they don't have all the attributes normally required for living things. And some even think prions are alive because they infect hosts and replicate, even though they lack nucleic acid entirely.

It's not such an easy thing to say, and suggests that life began gradually from non-living matter.

[Noose001]

Then the question becomes, how did this molecule come to be? Well, they are made up of various atoms in a specific structure. How do atoms combine to form molecules? Is a god necessary in every case? If not in every case, why in ANY case?

No, a god is not needed in such a bizzarre and an impossible situation.

Then the term 'self replicating' doesn't make any sense, why self replicating when you can just say a living molecule.

My last question would be, when can we say this 'self replicating' molecule dies? Is it when it desintergrates to its constituent molecules? And can it resurrect when the same molecules intergrate to form the self replicating molecule?

[Noose001]

You think I missed the point?!

- The girls arrived at practice.
- Non life became life.
- The 'when' is irrelevant to both statements.

I'm not asking if the girls arrived on time, that would be irrelevant, i just want to know when or even how the practice starts.

[Noose001]

So when can we say a non living molecule has become alive? a very relevant question that specifically targets abiogenesis because that shift, is what abiogenesis is, any other thing is irrelevant.

The same way we can say a certain thing is big. Obviously, there are things that are alive, and things that are big. There are things almost everyone would say are alive and things almost everyone would say are big. But there are also things that only some people would call alive, just as there are things only some people would call big.

I think everyone would say that a dog is alive, but I've had some creationists argue that plants aren't alive. Some biologists think viruses are alive, even though they don't have all the attributes normally required for living things. And some even think prions are alive because they infect hosts and replicate, even though they lack nucleic acid entirely.

It's not such an easy thing to say, and suggests that life began gradually from non-living matter.

We clearly know what is living and what is not.

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

[brunumb]

Then the term 'self replicating' doesn't make any sense, why self replicating when you can just say a living molecule.

Molecules themselves are not living things. Certain structures or combinations of molecules can be described as living things. Bricks are not houses, nor are carpets, or curtains or furniture. But a particular arrangement of those things may be called a house.

"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/

[benchwarmer]

Then the question becomes, how did this molecule come to be? Well, they are made up of various atoms in a specific structure. How do atoms combine to form molecules? Is a god necessary in every case? If not in every case, why in ANY case?

No, a god is not needed in such a bizzarre and an impossible situation.

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

Then the term 'self replicating' doesn't make any sense, why self replicating when you can just say a living molecule.

What does 'living' mean? Please reread my post again. I started by pointing out we first have to define 'alive'.

If a molecule can only replicate, but not do anything else normally considered 'alive' (react to stimulii, etc) then some don't consider that 'living'. However, as others have pointed out, there are multiple facets to different definitions of 'alive' and some things have a subset of these facets.

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.

My last question would be, when can we say this 'self replicating' molecule dies? Is it when it desintergrates to its constituent molecules? And can it resurrect when the same molecules intergrate to form the self replicating molecule?

See above. We have to define 'alive' first.

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'.

[Clownboat]

I'm not asking if the girls arrived on time, that would be irrelevant, i just want to know when or even how the practice starts.

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.

Alice made it to practice. How or when, we may know or may not know. How and when are irrelevant to the claim being made.

Again, what started it: "When do you think these self replicating molecules become alive?"
You even claim that this is relevant. Post 46: "a very relevant question"
And also: "what's wrong with my question?"
Non living molecules became living. The when does not affect this statement and is in fact not relevant. Acknowledging that the when question cannot be answered yet or that it is difficult to answer (like, when is something alive?) does not impact that non living became living.

Person A: Alice was at practice. (Non living became living).
Person B: Oh ya!?! When and how did she get there? (When and how does a non living molecule become a living molecule?) <----- The question you asked.

Alice was still at practice no matter how bad you want to know how she got there or when. How and when is just a distraction. Since you asked, that is what was wrong with your question IMO. It is in fact not relevant to the claim being made.