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?

[The Barbarian]

Because it lacks some of the attributes of living things

Which ones, please specify.

Already did.

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

As you learned, they also do glycolosis, just by a variation of the usual path. So yes, they are considered living. Many scientists do not consider viruses and prions to be alive, because they do not have these characteristics of all living things.

(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.

Sure. In this case, the disagreement over whether viruses are alive or not, depends on whether or not you consider the usual requirements for life to be valid or not. Viruses and prions, as you have seen, are "alive" in some senses, and not alive in others. It's a blurry boundary.

If viruses can DIE even outside living cells, then are alive.

And again, you've assumed what you proposed to prove.

As you see, by the definition of living things, mitochondria and chloroplasts are more "alive" than viruses. Indeed, the bacterial DNA in these organelles shows us that they are endosybionts, real bacteria that evolved to live within cells in a symbiotic relationship. Turns out such a symbiosis has been directly observed to develop. Would you like to learn about that?

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

Again, you've assumed what you proposed to prove.

[Noose001]

As you learned, they also do glycolosis, just by a variation of the usual path. So yes, they are considered living. Many scientists do not consider viruses and prions to be alive, because they do not have these characteristics of all living things.

Long story short, all living things use/process energy. Whatever pathways they use doesn't matter. Viruses and i hope prions too require and use energy for their processes.

Sure. In this case, the disagreement over whether viruses are alive or not, depends on whether or not you consider the usual requirements for life to be valid or not. Viruses and prions, as you have seen, are "alive" in some senses, and not alive in others. It's a blurry boundary.

Do they die?
It is very absurd to claim something is not alive but can be killed. Viruses do die, whether inside a cell or outside a cell. So no question about their living. Many can have opinions, doesn't matter.

[The Barbarian]

Long story short, all living things use/process energy.

So do hurricanes. You think hurricanes are alive?

Whatever pathways they use doesn't matter. Viruses and i hope prions too require and use energy for their processes.

So does the hydrologic cycle that makes rivers work. Rivers use/process energy. You think rivers are alive?

Sure. In this case, the disagreement over whether viruses are alive or not, depends on whether or not you consider the usual requirements for life to be valid or not. Viruses and prions, as you have seen, are "alive" in some senses, and not alive in others. It's a blurry boundary.

Do they die?

You're still assuming what you want to prove.

Do hurricanes die?

It is very absurd to claim something is not alive but can be killed.

So hurricanes are alive in your estimation?

Viruses do die,

You don't seem to be able to get out of your circular reasoning. Maybe reading this would help a little:
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... sequence=1
Or maybe in a more accessible form:
https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780385534611

A critique of the theory:
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resou ... sample.pdf

Seems to me that life works the way other processes of flow and energy work. What's unique about life? I don't know. For a long time, it was thought that only life could produce "organic" molecules. That's been repeatedly disproven, to the point that we now even have an example of abiotic protein:
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

At one time, it was thought that the complexity of a cell meant something magical or supernatural was involved. But as we learned more about the processes, the magic became superfluous.

Not as simple as some people imagine it to be. Everything is simple until you learn the details.

[Noose001]

So do hurricanes. You think hurricanes are alive?

So does the hydrologic cycle that makes rivers work. Rivers use/process energy. You think rivers are alive?

Biochemical processes are purposeful. Rivers and hurricanes might require or use energy but they are definately not purposeful.

[The Barbarian]

So do hurricanes. You think hurricanes are alive?

So does the hydrologic cycle that makes rivers work. Rivers use/process energy. You think rivers are alive?

Biochemical processes are purposeful. Rivers and hurricanes might require or use energy but they are definately not purposeful.

So, how do you consider viruses more "purposeful" than rivers? Rivers have a very definite purpose in the hydrologic cycle. Lots of things depend on rivers functioning.

Show us some objective way of measuring "purpose" and show us that viruses have it, and rivers lack it.

[Noose001]

Seems to me that life works the way other processes of flow and energy work. What's unique about life? I don't know. For a long time, it was thought that only life could produce "organic" molecules. That's been repeatedly disproven, to the point that we now even have an example of abiotic protein:
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

An atheist fodder, no suprise at all.
Organic molecukes outside a living cell are not the same as organic molecukes inside a cell. For instance; how does nature sort out L- amino acids only?

At one time, it was thought that the complexity of a cell meant something magical or supernatural was involved. But as we learned more about the processes, the magic became superfluous.

Not as simple as some people imagine it to be. Everything is simple until you learn the details.

Yes, the assumption is that everything is simple but a deep look uncovers complexity that can never be explained through natural means.

[Noose001]

So, how do you consider viruses more "purposeful" than rivers? Rivers have a very definite purpose in the hydrologic cycle. Lots of things depend on rivers functioning.

Show us some objective way of measuring "purpose" and show us that viruses have it, and rivers lack it.

Whatever viruses do are meant to make them stay alive. The processese are timely, the products of those processes are needed in the next cycle, toxic byproducts are purposefuly eliminated or detoxified so that the virus stays alive.

Everything the virus does is meant to preserve its life.
Everything a river does has nothing to do with life.

[benchwarmer]

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.

Ok, thank you. So by this definition, mature sperm are not 'alive' since they do not multiply (only the immature sperm multiply).

https://www.britannica.com/science/spermatogenesis

Also by this definition, human, female eggs are also not 'alive' since they do not multiply. They are produced:

https://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-r ... etime-eggs

So it seems we have a point where non living entities (mature sperm and egg) combine and create a living entity. This seems to break your assertion.

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.

Your reality has just been proven wrong by your very own definition. Maybe there are other definitions of 'alive'?

Sorry, I don't plan to impregnate someone to prove my point. Sounds fun, but not practical

[The Barbarian]

Seems to me that life works the way other processes of flow and energy work. What's unique about life? I don't know. For a long time, it was thought that only life could produce "organic" molecules. That's been repeatedly disproven, to the point that we now even have an example of abiotic protein:
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

An atheist fodder, no suprise at all.

It's just a fact. They found an abiotic protein inside a meteorite.

Organic molecukes outside a living cell are not the same as organic molecukes inside a cell. For instance; how does nature sort out L- amino acids only?

Life is not required for that. Even the amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite have an excess of L-forms:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ea ... -meteorite

So, it's not surprising that life on Earth used L-forms.

Yes, the assumption is that everything is simple but a deep look uncovers complexity that can never be explained through natural means.

As you just saw, protein formation turns out to be a natural process, contrary to your assumptions.

So do hurricanes. You think hurricanes are alive?

So does the hydrologic cycle that makes rivers work. Rivers use/process energy. You think rivers are alive?

Biochemical processes are purposeful.

Yes, l see you assumed so. But in the absence of evidence, it's not a very convincing assumption.

Rivers and hurricanes might require or use energy but they are definately not purposeful.

And your evidence for that assumption, is...?

[Noose001]

Ok, thank you. So by this definition, mature sperm are not 'alive' since they do not multiply (only the immature sperm multiply).

https://www.britannica.com/science/spermatogenesis

Also by this definition, human, female eggs are also not 'alive' since they do not multiply. They are produced:

https://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-r ... etime-eggs

So it seems we have a point where non living entities (mature sperm and egg) combine and create a living entity.

Your reality has just been proven wrong by your very own definition. Maybe there are other definitions of 'alive'?

Sorry, I don't plan to impregnate someone to prove my point. Sounds fun, but not practical

This is nothing more than desperation.
Both sperms and ova do mulitiply through mitosis and miosis, but that's not the point. Sperms and ova are purposeful mainly in propagation/ multiplication of a LIVING ORHANISM.