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]

It should be pointed out that a natural origin of life is not inconsistent with theism. This is particularly true for Christianity, since Genesis says life came from non-living material. Nor does this rule out God's role in creating life. Indeed, even anti-Darwinians like intelligent design advocates admit this much. From Nature's Destiny by Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton:
(pre-loading concept of creation)

Nope. God creates through men.

Not according to God. He says (for example) that He used the earth to bring forth life.

Materialism is an illusion.

It's merely a philosophy that says nature is all there is. Denton is not a materialist. He believes in a designer who transcends nature.

[The Barbarian]

But you have no evidence for that belief? What makes you think it's true then? Is a strand of nucleic acid outside the body nothing more than a chemical?

Yes, nucleic acid outside a cell cannot perform its 'purpose'.

That's what a virus is. So you've concluded that viruses are not alive.

Nope. Viruses have some protective barrier to protect the nucleic acid from DYING.

But it's outside of a cell, and cannot perform its supposed “purpose.” So you're still saying that a virus is not alive by the very definition you offered. A virus particle is nucleic acid outside of a cell, and by your definition, not alive. And once again, you've assumed that which you proposed to prove.

I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

[The Barbarian]

Possible but still, let's assume the distribution in nature is 75% L configuration, why is life skewed toward L configuration ( more than 75%)? Is there some sorting in nature?

We do know that L-forms tend to be more stable in UV light (such as sunlight), so that might be a clue.

Again, we imagine the origin of life from a self replicating peptide,

Probably from some form of nucleic acid. And yes, there are self-catalyzing nucleic acids.

then we ask, was it a functional or structural molecule.

You're assuming life had to be cellular to begin, at the same time you're insisting life doesn't have to be cellular.
Again, I don't think you've given this enough thought.

[Noose001]

Get up in the middle of the night and stumble towards the fridgidaire for a nice cold glass of milk, only don't turn on the lights, and stub your toe on the coffee table there, and you'll see that physical reality is quite real, and can be quite painful.

Pain is a part of the physical reality which is what i believe is an illusion, so?!!

So, if physical reality is an illusion, how come it hurts to fetch a toe into it?

If physical reality is an illusion, that coffee table, and that toe ain't really there. Nor the pain of the two meeting abruptly on a cold and stormy night.

True. If Time stops, everything disappears, that shows you that eveeything is Time but Time is not physical. You can d3cide on your own but definately, physical reality is not real.

[Noose001]

Not according to God. He says (for example) that He used the earth to bring forth life.

Everything within the 5 days of creation was retrospective of what man would experience.

But I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: The LORD of hosts is his name. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.
Isaiah 51:15‭-‬16 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/isa.51.15-16.KJV


Man's experience is the creation of the world.

[Noose001]

But you have no evidence for that belief? What makes you think it's true then? Is a strand of nucleic acid outside the body nothing more than a chemical?



But it's outside of a cell, and cannot perform its supposed “purpose.” So you're still saying that a virus is not alive by the very definition you offered. A virus particle is nucleic acid outside of a cell, and by your definition, not alive. And once again, you've assumed that which you proposed to prove.

I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

A hybernating bear doesn't fully funnction as is required yet it's alive. A virus outside a cell is much alive.

[Noose001]

Possible but still, let's assume the distribution in nature is 75% L configuration, why is life skewed toward L configuration ( more than 75%)? Is there some sorting in nature?

We do know that L-forms tend to be more stable in UV light (such as sunlight), so that might be a clue.

Again, we imagine the origin of life from a self replicating peptide,

Probably from some form of nucleic acid. And yes, there are self-catalyzing nucleic acids.

then we ask, was it a functional or structural molecule.

You're assuming life had to be cellular to begin, at the same time you're insisting life doesn't have to be cellular.
Again, I don't think you've given this enough thought.

One problem with abiogenesis is chirality. You can screem, you can go quiet but it wont change the fact that chirality is an issue for abiogenesis.
Q. How did nature sort out L- configuration which is required for life?

I don't have time to chit chat.

[The Barbarian]

One problem with abiogenesis is chirality.

As you just learned, chirality exists in nature apart from life. L-forms of amino acids tend to survive UV radiation more readily than D-forms. So it's not surprising that most amino acids in living things are L-forms. You were wrong, of course, about D-forms not existing in living things.

You can screem, you can go quiet but it wont change the fact that chirality is an issue for abiogenesis.

I'm just showing you that chirality exists in non-living things as well. So it's hard to see how you figure it's a problem.

Q. How did nature sort out L- configuration which is required for life?

Ultraviolet light, for one thing.

[quiote]I don'y have time to chit chat.
[/quote]

Take some time off, and think about whether or not you think viruses are alive, and why. Then we can talk.

[The Barbarian]

But you have no evidence for that belief? What makes you think it's true then? Is a strand of nucleic acid outside the body nothing more than a chemical?

(Denial that nucleic acid, outside of a cell, is alive, but believes a virus which is nucleic acid outside of a cell, is alive)

But it's outside of a cell, and cannot perform its supposed “purpose.” So you're still saying that a virus is not alive by the very definition you offered. A virus particle is nucleic acid outside of a cell, and by your definition, not alive. And once again, you've assumed that which you proposed to prove.

I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

A hybernating bear doesn't fully funnction as is required yet it's alive.

Hmmm... it breathes, it has a heartbeat, it metabolizes food for energy, it can respond to stimuli; it sure seems fully functional. What system in a bear does not work in hibernation?

A virus outside a cell is much alive.

You just said nucleic acid, outside of a cell is not alive. And that's what a virus is. You still seem conflicted about that.

[Noose001]

One problem with abiogenesis is chirality.

As you just learned, chirality exists in nature apart from life. L-forms of amino acids tend to survive UV radiation more readily than D-forms. So it's not surprising that most amino acids in living things are L-forms. You were wrong, of course, about D-forms not existing in living things.

You can screem, you can go quiet but it wont change the fact that chirality is an issue for abiogenesis.

I'm just showing you that chirality exists in non-living things as well. So it's hard to see how you figure it's a problem.

Q. How did nature sort out L- configuration which is required for life?

Ultraviolet light, for one thing.

[quiote]I don'y have time to chit chat.

Take some time off, and think about whether or not you think viruses are alive, and why. Then we can talk.
[/quote]

Yes i was wrong when i claimed 100% L configuration. But i was still right about L configuration needed for life. If it is morw than 95% then it is needed for life.
That's still a problem.for abiogenesis.