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]

The heart is no longer pumping oxygen to the cells and they are no longer able to continue metabolic processes. There is no magical ingredient called life that has somehow been withdrawn. Life is essentially just a classification based on certain criteria.

Q. Do you really think before responding?!

You can artificially pump blood and artificially supply oxygen in freshly dead cat but it wont resurrect.
Indeed, every known metabolic process can be artificially supplied but dead organism.wont resurrect.

[Noose001]

OK. When time stops and everything disappears you will have made your case. Otherwise, all you have presented is fanciful speculation.

Well, it shows 'physical reality' is not real, so what are you trying to say about reality?!
Remember, appearance and disappearance is a property of the mind, i.e, only a mind can tell disappearance and appearance.

[Noose001]

The life functions in a hibernating bear are simply slowed down to conserve the energy needed to maintain that life in the absence of new food sources. A virus outside of a cell is nothing more than a packet of DNA in a protein shell. It does nothing and that is why there is conflict over classifying it as being alive,

Precisely, a hybernating bear doesn't replicate, a viron outside a cell doesn't do much but there's no question that they are both living things.

There are plants and insects that hybernate/in stupor for 1 or 2 decades, can we say they are alive/ dead during this period?

[Noose001]

But is it actually required for life? It may simply be that the conditions under which these molecules formed favoured the L-configuration. Again, not knowing the answer now doesn't mean that there is no natural answer. Nor is it a compelling reason to insert a celestial chemist with a predilection for chirality into the process.

Yes, L-amino acids are required for life, D-amino acids are toxic for life.

You can argue that 'natural selection' happened, that all self replicating peptides with D forms could not continue to be alive and all L forms might have continued to be alive, BUT, the sorting in nature can not be by chance.Not possible.

[The Barbarian]

Yes i was wrong when i claimed 100% L configuration. But i was still right about L configuration needed for life.

So is oxygen and carbon. And many other things. All of which also form naturally. You seem to be undermining your own argument.

If it is morw than 95% then it is needed for life.

Ah, math. Good. Show us your calculations. Not that I don't believe you, but it's just that 88% of all statistics on the internet are just made up on the spot.

That's still a problem.for abiogenesis.

I know you want to believe so. But so far, you're not doing very well, trying to prove it.

[The Barbarian]

Precisely, a hybernating bear doesn't replicate,

So a person who doesn't have children isn't alive? Are you sure of that? If the bear replicated before hibernating, would he then be alive? What if he didn't replicate until he came out of hibernation? Would he not be alive until he replicated?

a viron outside a cell doesn't do much

So what does it do? We can list hundreds of things going on in a hibernating bear. Let's see your list for the things a virus particle does outside a cell.

but there's no question that they are both living things.

You've assumed so, but so far, you haven't been able to show us why you think so.

There are plants and insects that hybernate/in stupor for 1 or 2 decades, can we say they are alive/ dead during this period?

Metabolic processes slow down drastically, but they don't stop. Again, show us that such things are going on in a virus particle. Fact is, a virus particle outside a cell does have chemical changes, but those changes degrade the virus, and make it non-functional after a time.

[Noose001]

Precisely, a hybernating bear doesn't replicate,

So a person who doesn't have children isn't alive? Are you sure of that? If the bear replicated before hibernating, would he then be alive? What if he didn't replicate until he came out of hibernation? Would he not be alive until he replicated?

a viron outside a cell doesn't do much

So what does it do? We can list hundreds of things going on in a hibernating bear. Let's see your list for the things a virus particle does outside a cell.

but there's no question that they are both living things.

You've assumed so, but so far, you haven't been able to show us why you think so.

There are plants and insects that hybernate/in stupor for 1 or 2 decades, can we say they are alive/ dead during this period?

Metabolic processes slow down drastically, but they don't stop. Again, show us that such things are going on in a virus particle. Fact is, a virus particle outside a cell does have chemical changes, but those changes degrade the virus, and make it non-functional after a time.

Good. Apply the same reasoning to a virus outside a cell; just because the processes associated with life are not undertaken by a virus outside a cell doesn't mean it's not anloving thing.

[Noose001]

So is oxygen and carbon. And many other things. All of which also form naturally. You seem to be undermining your own argument.

False. In the absence of time, oxygen and carbon and the so called natural formation is indeed nothing. But time is not natural.

Ah, math. Good. Show us your calculations. Not that I don't believe you, but it's just that 88% of all statistics on the internet are just made up on the spot.

I know you want to believe so. But so far, you're not doing very well, trying to prove it.
[/quote]

On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.” The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.)


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/space/mu ... 180959956/

[The Barbarian]

So is oxygen and carbon. And many other things. All of which also form naturally. You seem to be undermining your own argument.[/quote]

quote=Noose001 post_id=1053134 time=1634474778 user_id=15802]False. In the absence of time, oxygen and carbon and the so called natural formation is indeed nothing. But time is not natural.[/quote]

Regardless, oxygen, carbon, and many other things form naturally. You're just wrong about that.

If it is morw than 95% then it is needed for life.

Ah, math. Good. Show us your calculations. Not that I don't believe you, but it's just that 88% of all statistics on the internet are just made up on the spot.

On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape,

As you learned, that's wrong. D-forms exist and are used by many organisms.

Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.”

No, that's wrong, too. There are organisms that use L-form sugars. L-glucose, in B. caryophylli, for example.

The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form.

And as you learned, many different organisms use D-form aminos acids.

(Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.)

No, that's wrong, too.

Among all domains of life, bacteria have the largest capacity to utilize D-amino acids. Bacteria have been described to synthesize more than 10 kinds of D-amino acids, most commonly D-alanine and D-glutamate for crosslinking within the peptidoglycan cell wall. But, cell walls found in other life, such as archaea or plants/fungi in eukaryote, are not composed with D-amino acids.

Furthermore, extracellular D-amino acids released from bacteria regulate remodeling of bacterial cell wall and are thought to function in communication among bacteria to accommodate changing environment. Besides structural function in bacterial cell wall, D-amino acids have been associated to growth fitness and to processes such as biofilm development, spore germination and signaling.

Bacteria develop unique metabolic pathways for multiple D-amino acids, such as amino acid racemization or epimerization. Therefore a variety of D-amino acids in nature can be regarded as molecules originated from bacteria and have been targeted for development of new antibiotics or bacteria-specific markers.

More recently, D-amino acids in interface between bacteria and mammals, such as mammalian gut, are highlighted. Mammals appear to recognize bacteria through metabolizing bacterial D-amino acids in the interface and modulate innate immune system. Moreover, a D-amino acid produced by probiotic bacteria has been identified to modify immune tolerance and ameliorate allergic inflammation in mammalian airway.
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-to ... e#overview

[The Barbarian]

Good. Apply the same reasoning to a virus outside a cell; just because the processes associated with life are not undertaken by a virus outside a cell doesn't mean it's not anloving thing.

That was your claim. You said that a nucleic acid, outside of a cell, is not alive. But it's also true that such a virus has no functions necessary for life.