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]

It might be a problem for you but it doesn't really matter when. Exactly when does a pile of timber, bricks and mortar become a house?

When it is finished( nothing to be added) and furnished (has all that is required) to provide shelter. This can be explained in details too, doesn't need a hypothesis.

Your simple dismissal does not change the fact that there are many stages where the structure is called a house without it being absolutely complete.

Life is based on chemistry. Complex reactions occur in living things every second. It happens without any any external intervention and is based on the physical and chemical properties of matter. To think that it started from far simpler processes is not a stretch. Just because we don't know when and how it all happened does not preclude it from having happened despite your protestations. You claim that abiogenesis is impossible. Prove it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Abiogenesis is impossible

You'll struggle greatly to put truth to that claim.

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

Composed of atoms / chemicals. Beyond that lines get fuzzy.

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

Sure - cut it into itty bitty pieces.

[Noose001]

Sorry but i'm not the one to give any evidence.

Yes, obviously. But it's a rather strange tack to take given that this is a debate sub-forum where one is expected to present evidence to support their position.


Tcg

But i have presented the reasoning behind my objection. Don't forget my work is to critique the claim/ hypothesis.

[Noose001]

Because it lacks some of the attributes of living things

.

Which ones, please specify.

"Many" would be a huge exaggeration. A few gram-negative bacteria use an offshoot form of glycolosis called the Entner–Doudoroff pathway

The Entner–Doudoroff (ED) pathway is present in a number of bacteria where it can be a major pathway of glucose catabolism under aerobic conditions. The ED pathway (Figure 4) represents an offshoot of the oxidative branch of the PPP.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/bi ... ff-pathway

So to account for those few exceptions,we'll just say "glycolosis.

Q. Are those 'few' gram -ve bacteria considered living? If yes, your claims have no merit.

And those 'few' gram -ve bacteria outnumber all higher organisms (multicellular) by far. So how few are they?

(Demonstration that viruses lack many things considered essential for living things, and that many biologists do not consider viruses to be living)
This is why there isn't. As you see, the distinction between "living" and "non-living" is a very blurred boundary,.

Many can have opinions contrary to reality. If viruses can DIE even outside living cells, then are alive.

Do prions die?

You tell me because honestly i don't know what they are. It is very simple, if they can die, they are living, if they can't, they are not.

Neither are viruses. Without a living cell to hold them, viruses soon become degraded and can no longer function. Pretty much like chloroplasts and mitochondria. However, mitochondria and chloroplasts can continue of metabolize and function for at least a while outside of cells. Prions and viruses cannot. The vast majority of them, anyway; there are a few very large viruses that might be close to such things; again, blurring the distinction between living and non-living.

1. No such thing as chloroplast and mitochondria outside a cell, they are simply organelles.

2. Viruses can die even when outside a cell, so they are living things even outside a cell

3. Continuing some chemical processes outside a living cell doesn't necessarily mean life.

[Tcg]

Sorry but i'm not the one to give any evidence.

Yes, obviously. But it's a rather strange tack to take given that this is a debate sub-forum where one is expected to present evidence to support their position.


Tcg

But i have presented the reasoning behind my objection.

Of what value is reasoning absent evidence?

Don't forget my work is to critique the claim/ hypothesis.

How did you get this job?


Tcg

[Noose001]

Did I assert it? Maybe quote me? ANY claim made in debate may be challenged. That's how it works. YOU claimed abiogenesis is impossible (out of left field by the way) while I was explaining how a molecule could be considered alive by a limited definition of alive.

On this point, I'm really not trying to argue with you, I'm actually trying to figure out what you are talking about. What does 'alive' mean to you? Feel free to either provide a link or present your definition. At this point it's like me telling you that you have blargles in your hair, but I refuse to tell you what blargles are.

Clearly, but why? You seem to be implying that you know what alive means, but have no interest in explaining yourself. At this point, any further debate is pointless.

All living things use biochemical processes to support life. Living things have the following characteristics:
1. Require energy
2. Respond to stimuli
3. Multiply
4. Excreate - isolate and/or evacuate harmful substances within for the purpose of preserving life
5. Develope

And most importantly, they die.

So what's your point?

And yes, non life can not shift to life, chemical processes can not become living ( biochemical processes), dead can not resurrect unless it is a miracle.
I'm not asserting, this is reality. If you claim these things are possible then you have an explanation to do and a demonstration to perform.

[Noose001]

Your simple dismissal does not change the fact that there are many stages where the structure is called a house without it being absolutely complete.

Even a blue print/ master plan can be called a house; very different from a non living thing being called living.
A non living thing is never living anf a living thing is never dead until it is. Very clear boundary.

Life is based on chemistry.

No, life is based on biochemistry.
Aren't you the one who clearly showed the difference between chemistry and biochemistry? One of the difference being order? Another being the environment?

Complex reactions occur in living things every second. It happens without any any external intervention and is based on the physical and chemical properties of matter.

Why should thise complex reaction ONLY happen in the presence of life and cease in the absence of life?

To think that it started from far simpler processes is not a stretch. Just because we don't know when and how it all happened does not preclude it from having happened despite your protestations. You claim that abiogenesis is impossible. Prove it.

Either you know or you don't, can't be both. If you don't know how, you don't have the liberty to critisize any other position because you don't know your own position.

[Noose001]

You'll struggle greatly to put truth to that claim.

I don't have to, only those who claim life arose feom non life need to prove their claims, failure to which i can claim anything against.

Composed of atoms / chemicals. Beyond that lines get fuzzy.

Non living things are composed of atoms/chemicals too. You are not doing any favors.

[Noose001]

Of what value is reasoning absent evidence?

???!
Kindly let others contribute if you have reached dead end.

How did you get this job?


Tcg

I logged in.
It's a debate, i don't support the idea so i'll ask questions hoping that i'll be convinced.

[JoeyKnothead]

You'll struggle greatly to put truth to that claim.

I don't have to, only those who claim life arose feom non life need to prove their claims, failure to which i can claim anything against.

"I don't hafta to prove me none of my claims, but ya can bet your fourth point of contact Imma gon' hold me to everyone else ahavin' to support em the ones it is they do!"

I'm curious, have you ever heard of the word "integrity"? It's a great word. Look it up.

Composed of atoms / chemicals. Beyond that lines get fuzzy.

Non living things are composed of atoms/chemicals too. You are not doing any favors.

You asked for a list of properties of life so I gave you an albeit limited list.

Had you asked for properties separate from non-living, then...


Living.